33. On December 16, 1998, the National Investigating Criminal Prosecutor No. 14 formally charged Drs. P.C.A. and E.M.N. of the Sardá Hospital with manslaughter for “malpractice for not having diagnosed, properly and at the precise moment, the situation of the victim and the fetus, causing a negligent act for not having adopted all the measures of care required by the case, thus not complying with their duty.”28 34. On July 18, 2003, the two physicians were acquitted because there was a dispute as to whether Ms. Brítez Arce had had a high-risk pregnancy and because there was no attribution of the basic elements of a lack of responsibility. The decision was appealed and upheld by the Criminal Court of Appeals, which stated that “the hypotheses handled by the complaint are probable, but they have not been proven, and the delay in conducting the autopsy does not make it possible to reach definitive conclusions on the cause of death […] and it is not admissible to attribute responsibility to the accused physicians.”29 On December 23, 2003, an extraordinary federal appeal was filed but was declared inadmissible for being time-barred. B.2 Case No. 21,375/96 35. Case No. 21,375/96 arose out of the complaint presented by the judge of Case No. 2,391 (supra para. 31) for the alleged criminal responsibility of Drs. C.P. and F.C. for falsifying a public document and its cover-up. It was later broadened to include falsifying a medical record. At that time a third expert opinion was requested of the Director of the National Academy of Medicine, which was presented on July 11, 1996. 36. Drs. C.P. and F.C. were acquitted and the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the complainant appealed. During this process, the plenary of the Medical Examiners Corps was asked for an expert opinion, without the participation of Drs. C.P. and F.C. and S. and P. Three expert opinions were presented: the principal one, signed by 31 physicians, and two others. One of the other reports, signed by Drs. P.P., R.G., A.L. and J.V. on May 7, 1997, stated that they shared the opinion of the first report and indicated that, in medical matters, the criterion of the attending doctor prevails; in this case, that of the doctor who ordered the examinations that, on May 28, 1992, showed a viable fetus. The plenary opinion was declared null and void by the Fourth Chamber of the Criminal Court of Appeals on September 23, 1997. 37. During the appeal, the Fourth Chamber ordered a seventh expert opinion, which was presented by forensic physicians of the Catholic University of Córdoba on March 13, 1998. This document states that: […] Conclusion: according to the facts recorded in the medical record, the patient suffered from eclampsia, acidosis, and brain hemorrhage, which led to her death from an irreversible cardiopulmonary arrest (f. 693). […] it was a high-risk pregnancy and the necessary precautions were not taken. […] The physicians C.P. and F.C. did not correctly interpret the information indicated in the medical record. […] We believe that the most important risk factor for Ms. Brítez Arce and her fetus was the deplorable quality of care that she was given […].30 38. This expert opinion also identified deficiencies in the medical record; among them, omissions, altered numbers, unnumbered pages and pages with an incomplete name. There were also flaws in the care of the fetus and the mother during the pregnancy and negligence in the care received on June 1, 1992. It also argued that the experts C.P. and F.C. did not correctly 28 Office of the Public Prosecutor. Accusation of December 16, 1998 (evidence file, f. 59). 29 Special Federal Appeal of December 23, 2003, presented by René Federico Garrís (evidence file, f. 47). 30 Expert opinion of the Catholic University of Córdoba of March 13, 1998 (evidence file, ff. 111–123). 11