weeks of pregnancy.19 On that day she was seen by a cardiologist who noted a “history of arterial hypertension” in her clinical history.20 Ms. Brítez Arce then had checkups at the Sardá Hospital on April 6 and 21 and May 5 and had another obstetrical ultrasound scan on May 1921 and weekly fetal monitoring since April 27.22 Between March 10 and June 1, Ms. Brítez Arce gained more than 22 pounds.23 29. On June 1, 1992, Ms. Brítez Arce went to the Sardá Maternity around 9 a.m., where she complained of lower back pain, fever and a scant loss of liquid from her genitals. She was given an ultrasound scan that indicated that the fetus was dead and, therefore, an induced labor was attempted to deliver the dead fetus. This procedure began at 1:45 p.m. and ended at 5:15 p.m., when she was moved to the maternity ward with full dilatation.24 During that time, she had to wait two hours in a chair.25 According to the death certificate, Cristina Brítez Arce died on that day at 6 p.m. of “non-traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest.” B. Proceedings regarding the death of Ms. Brítez Arce B.1 Case No. 2,391 30. On June 15, 1992, Miguel Ángel Avaro, father of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro, filed a complaint regarding the death of Cristina Brítez Arce and requested that an autopsy be performed on her and the fetus. He later asked that the autopsy be suspended “because it had been ordered that experts proposed by those who were not a party to the case participate in it.”26 The autopsy was performed on July 25, 1992. 31. On June 24, 1993, according to the Report on the Merits, the forensic experts C.P. and F.C. submitted the first medical expert opinion on the matter, which was declared null and void. On October 4 of the same year, the judge in charge of the case filed a complaint against the experts for falsifying a public document, which gave rise to Case No. 21,375/96 (infra para. 35). 32. The University of Buenos Aires Medical School was then asked to provide its expertise, but it informed that it could not accept the request. The Medical Examiners Corps was asked to designate other physicians to submit an expert opinion. On April 25, 1995, Drs. S., P., W., A. and C. presented a second opinion in which they stated that Ms. Brítez Arce was a high-risk patient who should have received a treatment other than that which she was given.27 19 Cf. Expert opinion of Drs. P.P., R.G., A.L. and J.V. of May 7, 1997 (evidence file, f. 12). 20 Expert opinion of the Catholic University of Córdoba of March 13, 1998 (evidence file, f. 131). Cf. First Chamber of the National Court of Criminal Appeals. Decision of August 6, 1999 (evidence file, f. 25) and expert opinion of the Catholic University of Córdoba of March 13,1998 (evidence file, f. 127). 21 22 25). Cf. First Chamber of the National Court of Criminal Appeals. Decision of August 6, 1999 (evidence file, f. “Such an increase is clearly excessive since the weekly increase considered normal is a little more than a pound at this stage of pregnancy.” First Chamber of the National Court of Criminal Appeals, Decision of August 6,1999 (evidence file, f. 23). Cf. Expert opinion of Drs. P.P., R.G., A.L. and J.V. of May 7, 1997 (evidence file, f. 13) and expert opinion of Dr. E.B. of July 24, 2000 (evidence file, f. 368). 23 Cf. Expert opinion of Drs. P.P., R.G., A.L. and J.V. of May 7, 1997 (evidence file, f. 12) and First Chamber of the National Court of Criminal Appeals. Decision of August 6, 1999 (evidence file, f. 28). 24 25 Cf. Statement of Ezequiel Martín Avaro at the virtual public proceedings of May 20, 2022. 26 Expert opinion of Drs. P.P., R.G., A.L. and J.V. of May 7, 1997 (evidence file, f. 6). Cf. Expert opinion of Drs. P.P., R.G., A.L. and J.V. of May 7, 1997 (evidence file, f. 7) and complaint presented by Miguel Ángel Avaro before the Investigating Judge (evidence file, f. 189). 27 10