28 Cuesta, before the Sixth Chamber, as “perpetrators of the crime defined in [articles] 456 and 457 of the Criminal Code.”81 84. On December 13, 1999, the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Quito issued an order stating, inter alia, that: […] the following pieces of evidence of the actual commission of the crime stand out from the analysis of the case file [...] 2) medical experts´ [r]eports [...] 3) Information contained in the Sheet of the Metropolitan Hospital on the reported events [...] 6) Neurological opinion by Dr. Iván Gustavo Reinoso Vaca […] 7) certificate issued by Dr. Marcelo E. Cruz. […) Third.- Based on the analysis of the body of evidence reviewed and specially supported in paragraph a) of Dr. Edgar P. Samaniego Rojas´ report; in the preceding whereas clause, it is concluded that: 1) A negligent conduct resulted in the commission of a crime by omission, so far as no information about the evolution of the disease had been recorded in the clinical history for many hours, as it is mandatory to physicians, who act as guarantors and are obliged to act accordingly [...] that in health care institutions, this duty is performed by resident physicians, a material precaution in our opinion, until arrival of the responsible Doctor who is In Charge of the patient [...] and the Doctor In Charge must procure that said recording be done [...] (underline in original) […A]s no specific laws providing for MEDICAL MALPRACTICE has been enacted, the conduct has been adapted to the crime defined in Article 459 of the Criminal Code, the elements and punishment of which are prescribed in Article 460 ibidem, as an unintentional crime under our code, that is to say, an essentially negligent criminal conduct […] furthermore, in the documents [...] containing scientific criteria of [...] Neurologists Marcelo and Iván Cruz-Utreras [...], “morphine is absolutely contraindicated in patients with symptoms of meningitis” [...] and Dr. Iván Cruz holds [that] “[t]his type of drug in patients with high intracranial pressure signs, or meningitis symptoms, is always contraindicated, no matter the dosage.” […] [i]n the light of the above-mentioned, the members of the Chamber, taking into account part of the criteria adopted by the Prosecutor, reversed the order in appeal as follows[:] [...] with regard to Dr. Ramiro Montenegro-López, it is worth noting that, based on certain presumptions, he may be signalized as the person who committed the crime as perpetrator under the provisions of Article 459 of the Criminal Code, which defines a negligent act – that in the instant case is committed by omission – nevertheless, the crime is punishable by PRISON according to Article 460 ibidem and the action to prosecute said crime under the provisions of Article 101 subarticle 4 of said code [...] is time-barred. In other words, the action has been exercised out of time since the events occurred on December 18, 1987 [...] and more than five years elapsed from that date that the court ordered to investigate the alleged crime dated January 10, 1997; where a five-year statute of limitations applies. […] this Chamber holds that the statute of limitations applies to the action to prosecute the crime of which Dr. Ramiro Montenegro-López was accused. With regard to Dr. Fabián Ernesto Espinoza-Cuesta, based on the presumptions that he perpetrated the crime defined and punishable under Article 456 of the Criminal Code pursuant to the provisions of Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the CASE IS SET FOR TRIAL, [...] his property will be impounded in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED MILLION SUCRES. Owing to the fact that the accused is a fugitive. [I]t is hereby ordered that Trial be adjourned until the accused is held in custody or voluntarily appears in person.82 […] 81 Cf. court order of the Fifth Criminal Court of December 23, 1998 (file of internal proceeding, criminal case No. 010-97-AP, volume XI, p. 2033), and prosecutor’s opinion of June 15, 1999, supra note 78.