26. The State also indicates that in the case brought ex officio for falsification of a public instrument,6 the court that was assigned the case investigated the suspected criminal responsibility of forensic experts Florencio Casavilla and Carlos Fernando Leoncio Poggi for alleged falsification of an expert opinion with the intention of concealing the criminal responsibility of Patricia Carmen Anido and Eduardo Mario Negri for the death of Cristina Britez Arce. In that regard, a plenary was convened of the Forensic Medical Corps, which issued its opinion on May 21 1997. According to the State, that plenary opinion “was invalidated” by the Fourth Chamber of the Criminal Court of Appeals, for which reason another expert opinion was ordered, which was prepared by the Catholic University of the Province of Córdoba. The State holds that the lower court acquitted both forensic experts, a decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeals on October 21, 2002. 27. The State also said that, in response to the complaint filed by the father of the petitioners, the alleged responsibility of 31 doctors belonging to the Forensic Medical Corps alleged to have falsified the plenary expert opinion drawn up in the proceeding for falsification of a public instrument (Case No. 21.375/96), was duly investigated.7 The State explains that on April 12, 1999, the lower court decided to acquit all 31 accused doctors. That decision was appealed by the petitioners and upheld by the Criminal Court of Appeals on August 6, 1999. The petitioners filed a cassation appeal against that decision, which was refused on October 20, 1999. Subsequently, on March 30, 2000, the National Court of Cassation rejected a motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal. The petitioners reportedly filed a extraordinary federal appeal against that decision, which was ruled inadmissible on October 17, 2000, a fact of which the petitioners were notified on October 19 that year. 28. As a subsidiary matter, the State argues that a careful analysis of the domestic proceedings reveals clearly that the actions pursued against the accused doctors were conducted in accordance with the guarantees of legal due process, in keeping with the standards required by international human rights law and article 8.1 of the American Convention. In that regard, it said that there is nothing in the records to support the claim of a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the judges or tribunals that acquitted the accused doctors. The State says that the petitioners, as plaintiffs, never recused the presiding judges, invariably enjoyed in full the possibility of making such submissions as they deemed pertinent by proposing measures intended to establish the alleged responsibility of the accused doctors, and presented all such challenges as they deemed appropriate by means of the procedural remedies provided by domestic law. 29. The State also argues that the petitioners did not provide evidence that demonstrated the existence of external pressures on the judges and tribunals involved such as to cast serious doubts on their independence; nor did they offer compelling evidence to show any bias, either subjective or objective, on their part. The State argues that the petitioners refer in general terms to “a lack of independence”, but do not specify or concretely demonstrate the existence of any actual external pressures that impaired the independence of the judges and tribunals involved in the domestic jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the State, it is fair to conclude that the judgments in the domestic proceedings were issued by domestic tribunals that acted within their authority and in observance of fair-trial guarantees. 30. The State adds that the allegations of the petitioners regarding violation of their right to a hearing, the lack of basic procedural guarantees and of independent and impartial tribunals, and the absence of reasoned decisions, are general in nature and they lack evidence to support their submissions. According to the State, the petitioners merely mention that the rulings issued by the various judicial organs were “incorrect in their reasoning” and that they failed to take into account essential facts and proof to demonstrate the criminal responsibility of the accused. In light of the foregoing, the State considers that if the IACHR were to admit this petition, it would be acting as a fourth instance. 31. By way of “final considerations,” the State says that the series of expert opinions, which the petitioners argue were falsified in order to aid and abet medical personnel, were invalidated in the domestic jurisdiction. The last of those expert opinions—the one prepared by the Forensic Medical Corps—was 6 Criminal Court of First Instance No. 3 (Secretariat 110), “CASAVILLA, Florencio et al. - Falsification of a public document.” Case No. 21.375/96. 7 Criminal Court of First Instance No. 4 (Secretariat 113), “FORENSIC MEDICAL CORPS - Perjury.” Case 27.985/98. 5