opinion, that it had been prepared with the answers already written, and that pressure had been put on other forensic experts to sign the concealing answers. 19. According to the petitioners, the investigation had been dismissed for lack of a prosecutor’s summons, as was confirmed by the First Chamber of the Criminal Court of Appeals on September 17, 1997. d. Criminal proceeding for perjury (Case No. 27.985/98)3 20. The petitioners say that on April 1, 1998, they filed a criminal complaint4 for perjury against all 31 members of the Medical Corps. In that case, the alleged corrupt and corporative behavior of the Forensic Medical Corps in falsifying the plenary’s opinion and aiding and abetting their colleagues was purportedly investigated. The petitioners informed that on April 12, 1999, the presiding judge decided to acquit all 31 doctors implicated in the case. 21. Upon appealing that decision, the petitioners said that they were denied consideration of evidence and that the facts that were the subject of the case had been distorted. They also mentioned serious flaws in the supporting arguments and reasoning in the ruling adopted, which, they allege, deprived them of a duly founded decision. The First Chamber of the Criminal Court of Appeals reportedly upheld the decision of the court of first instance on August 6, 1999. 22. The petitioners filed a cassation appeal against that decision which was refused on October 20, 1999. They then filed a motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal, which was rejected on March 30, 2000. In that regard, the petitioners argued that they had been denied access to a comprehensive review of the judgment under the terms of article 8.2.h of the Convention. 23. They said that subsequently they filed an extraordinary federal appeal for arbitrariness and serious misconduct by a government institution with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on May 8, 2000. In that filing, they claimed that the procedural platform had been substituted, decisive evidence had been disregarded, and that said evidence had even been tampered with. They said that that appeal was also rejected and that they were notified as much on October 19, 2000. B. The State 24. The State holds that the petition is inadmissible, given that in none of the cases were the remedies available under domestic law exhausted in the requisite manner. It also argues that the petition does not present a colorable claim of violation of rights ensured by the American Convention and that the petitioners’ intention is to use the IACHR as a “fourth instance” to review the judgments as to fact and law made by the domestic judges and tribunals. 25. The State argues that the alleged criminal responsibility of the medical personnel who treated the alleged victim was investigated in the proceeding for manslaughter.5 The State mentions that on July 18, 2003, the magistrate’s court decided to acquit Patricia Carmen Anido and Eduardo Mario Negri, the accused in the case, of all blame and charges. That judgment was appealed by the office of the prosecutor assigned to the case and upheld at second instance by the Criminal Court of Appeals on November 27, 2003. The State also says that the petitioners filed an extraordinary federal appeal, which was rejected as “time-barred” by the Criminal Court of Appeals on March 15, 2004. 3 Criminal Court of First Instance No. 4 (Secretariat 113), “FORENSIC MEDICAL CORPS - Perjury.” Case No. 27.985/98. The petitioners also referred to this case as “FORENSIC MEDICAL CORPS - False expert opinion.” 4 In their initial petition, the petitioners informed the IACHR that the complaint was filed by their father (who was also the former spouse of the alleged victim), Miguel Ángel Avaro, in their representation, given that they were minors in accordance with Argentine legislation in force at that time. 5 Magistrate’s Court No. 8 (Secretariat 63), “BRITEZ ARCE, Cristina - Manslaughter.” Case No. 2.391. 4