a. Criminal proceeding for manslaughter (Case No. 2.391)1 7. The petitioners say that as a result of the alleged victim’s death, a charge of manslaughter was filed against the physicians who attended Cristina Britez Arce at the “Ramón Sarda” Public Maternity Hospital, namely Patricia Carmen Anido and Eduardo Mario Negri. The petitioners reportedly appeared as plaintiffs in the criminal proceeding. 8. An expert medical opinion was ordered on June 13, 1992, and introduced into the file a year later, on June 24, 1993, by forensic experts Florencio Casavilla and Carlos Fernando Leoncio Poggi. According to the petitioners, the experts had prepared a “false” opinion with the precise intention of covering up the homicide under investigation. The presiding judge allegedly declared the opinion void and, acting ex officio, filed a complaint charging falsification of public documents. That complaint gave rise to the proceeding registered as Case No. 21.375/96, outlined hereinbelow. 9. Subsequently, a new expert opinion was requested and presented by the experts Héctor Papagani and Horacio Schiavo on April 25, 1995, one day before the statute of limitations on criminal action ran. That expert opinion apparently refuted the findings of the first expert opinion and corroborated that the alleged victim had been a “high-risk patient” who had received the wrong treatment, had had to be admitted as a result, and had later died. It was decided, based on the new expert opinion, to charge the physicians with homicide. The petitioners also provided copies of a presentation in which they claimed that the clinical history of the alleged victim had been tampered with during the investigation and that various parts of it had disappeared, including the original of an electrocardiography that reputedly proved that the alleged victim had a heart defect. 10. On December 16, 1998, the prosecutor reportedly indicted the accused physicians and sought penalties of three years’ imprisonment and nine years’ disqualification from the practice of medicine. However, on July 18, 2003, the court issued a judgment acquitting Patricia Carmen Anido and Eduardo Mario Negri of all blame and charges. That decision was upheld on appeal. Next, the petitioners say that on December 23, 2003, the date on which they presented an extraordinary federal appeal (locally referred to as “recurso extraordinario federal”), a “maneuver” by the court personnel upon taking receipt of the brief resulted in their being denied timely access to the appeal, which was eventually rejected as “time-barred” on March 15, 2004. b. Criminal proceeding for falsification of a public instrument (Case No. 21.375/96)2 11. The ex officio complaint lodged by the judge presiding over the investigation for manslaughter resulted in this case being brought on October 4, 1993. The petitioners reportedly appeared as plaintiffs in this case too. 12. According to the petitioners, the preliminary inquiry stage of this proceeding lasted more than four years, during which time the presiding judge apparently acquitted the accused experts on five different occasions, with the Fourth Chamber of the Criminal Court of Appeals overturning those acquittals each time. After the fourth acquittal was overturned, the judge hearing the case decided, on February 26, 1997, to request an expert opinion from the plenary of the Forensic Medical Corps of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (hereinafter also the “Forensic Medical Corps”). On May 21, 1997, the plenary, comprising 31 professionals, issued its opinion, which found, by a majority of 22 votes in favor and 9 against that the expert opinion prepared by experts Florencio Casavilla and Carlos Fernando Leoncio Poggi “had been correct;” it also ruled out that medical malpractice had been committed. The dissenting votes determined that the expert opinion under study was false. That plenary opinion led to the fifth acquittal of the accused, which, likewise, was subsequently overturned. 1 Magistrate’s Court No. 8 (Secretariat 63), “BRITEZ ARCE, Cristina - Manslaughter.” Case No. 2.391. The petitioners also refer to this case as “BRITEZ ARCE, Cristina - Homicide Art. 43. Criminal Code.” 2 Criminal Court of First Instance No. 3 (Secretariat 110), “CASAVILLA, Florencio et al. - Falsification of a public document.” Case No. 21.375/96 (during processing at second instance by the Criminal Court of Appeals, this case was numbered 18.668). 2