14 She is 83 years old and she is a housewife. Her children are: Crispín, Roberto, Segundina, Miguelita, Perseveranda, Vicente, Sabina and Fidela, Baldeón-Yllaconza. They are her only “source of income”, given her age, health, and taking into account that she does not have a job and that the State has not granted her any pension. Two days after the events, on September 27, 1990, Santos Baldeón-Palacios and Jesús Baldeón-Zapata informed her about the death of her husband, who was 68 years old by the time he was taken and executed by the armed forces. This was a great shock for her, she was deeply affected by the absence of her husband, not only “for the love she had for him [...] but also because he was the main provider to maintain the family.” Due to that situation, she had to move to the “capital” in view of the reprisals of the armed forces, leaving behind her “small piece of land” in her home-town and the rest of her property; she also had to make a new start together with her family in a city such as Lima, where “she has not got accustomed to living in until this date.” She led a “peaceful” life, together with her family in her home-town, and all family members contributed “to maintain” the home. They lived on what they could grow in their fields and therefore, they do not have any skills other than farming, and thus, it is very difficult for them to get a job. EXPERT REPORTS 1. María Dolores Morcillo-Méndez, Specialist in Forensic Medicine and Criminal Judicial Institutions. The record drawn upon the recognition of the victim’s corpse does not show any information regarding the circumstances in which the death occurred, nor does it contain any data regarding the age, aspect and position of the corpse at the time of such recognition. There is not either any description of “cadaverous phenomena.” There is a description of the skull, as “it may be inferred that corresponds to the head since the corpse was not dissected.” A haematoma on the face is described without details. Thus, the injury was interpreted by a “person not qualified for such task.” In the rest of the description it is stated that “it does not show any signs,” without any clear explanation of the kind of signs to which reference is made, “specifically, reference as to whether or not they correspond to signs of trauma.” At the end of the record, under the heading “SUMMARY” it is stated that the probable cause of the death was a “CARDIAC ARREST,” though, strictly speaking, it is not a “cause of death.” By such denomination, it is understood that the heart stops beating, which is something that occurs in all deaths. Therefore, the record of the examination does not show any cause of death whatsoever. From the information that was available, studied and analyzed, the expert drew the following conclusions as regards the forensic experts performance in the instant case: a) no medico-legal autopsy had been performed; b) there is no information about the methodology applied to draw the record of the medical examination of the corpse, and such examination does not exactly conform to the basic principles and procedures established for this kind of investigation of deaths occurring when there is a situation of custody by the State, or for deaths occurring in violent circumstances in general; c) the main deficiencies have been detected in the