autopsy report of October 7, 2005, as requested, he indicated that the time of the victim’s death had been between seven and eleven hours before the autopsy was performed, which was unrealistic because, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service, he had to correct this because he had acted negligently in the course of his work.145 95. The forensic physician and the Ombudsman filed appeals for the review of this decision on November 9 and December 7, 2006.146 On January 17, 2007, the Judiciary’s Office of General Management declared that the appeal filed by the forensic physician was unfounded and the appeal filed by the Ombudsman was partially founded and concluded that the errors committed were minor, serious and extremely serious, and had caused serious harm to the human rights of third parties and to the image of the Judiciary. Consequently, it recommended that the Disciplinary Regime Unit impose the corresponding sanction. 147 On January 25, 2007, the forensic physician filed an appeal to annul148 the decision of January 17, 2007. In response, on February 1, 2007, the Judiciary’s Office of General Management declared that the remedy filed was inadmissible.149 Against this decision, the forensic physician filed an appeal for annulment on February 12, 2007.150 The Judiciary’s Office of General Management rejected this appeal on March 12, 2007.151 Then, as a result of the decision of January 17, 2007, on February 12, 2007, the Disciplinary Regime Unit declared the forensic physician in contempt of court and that the complaint filed was admissible because he had provided a forensic report “indicating that he had performed an autopsy on an unidentified person of female sex, when that person had been identified.” In addition, it classified the physician’s conduct as gross negligence and imposed 20 days’ suspension without salary as a sanction. 152 The forensic physician filed appeals to annul this decision on February 21 and October 2, 2007.153 96. On September 5, 2007, the President of the Judiciary forwarded a certification of the proceeding to the Disciplinary Regime Unit so that it could issue a decision imposing the respective sanction.154 In response, on October 16, 2007, the Disciplinary Regime Unit declared the forensic physician in contempt of court, that the complaint filed against him was admissible, and classified his conduct as gross negligence because, when he presented the expanded autopsy report, he had indicated that the time of death of Claudina Velásquez had been between seven and eleven hours before the autopsy had been performed, which he had to correct at the request of the Public Prosecution Service. Accordingly, it imposed a sanction of 20 days’ suspension of duties without pay.155 97. On October 30, 2007, the forensic physician requested an amendment to the proceeding156 because the appeal for annulment had not been decided (supra para. 95). In response, on October 31, 2007,157 the President of the Judiciary ordered that the proceeding Cf. Decision of the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System of November 29, 2006 (evidence file, folios 3325 to 3331). 146 Cf. Briefs of the appeal for review of November 9 and December 8, 2006 (evidence file, folios 3337 to 3340 and 3346 to 3349). 147 Cf. Decision of the Office pf General Management of the Judiciary of January 17, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3377 to 3380). 148 Cf. Brief of the appeal for annulment of January 25, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3394 to 3396). 149 Cf. Decision of the Office of General Management of the Judiciary of February 1, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3403 and 3404). 150 Cf. Brief of the appeal for annulment of February 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3424 and 3425). 151 Cf. Decision of the Office of General Management of the Judiciary of March 12, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3437). 152 Decision of the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System of February 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3406 to 3410). 153 Cf. Briefs of the appeal for annulment of February 21 and October 2, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3442 to 3448 and 3500 to 3510). 154 Cf. Decision of the President of the Judiciary of September 5, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3494). 155 Cf. Decision of the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System of October 16, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3515 to 3519). 156 Cf. Brief requesting an amendment of the proceeding of October 30, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3527 to 3529). 157 Cf. Decision of the President of the Judiciary of October 31, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3530). 145 33