B. State 12. The state alleges that the IACHR is being used as a “fourth instance” to review the assessments of fact and law made by domestic judges and courts. 13. The state alleges that, in the framework of the case for manslaughter, the alleged criminal responsibility of the medical staff who attended Ms. Cristina Britez Arce was investigated, and they were acquitted of wrongdoing and charges were dropped in July 2003. That judgment was appealed by the prosecutor dealing with the case and upheld in the court of second instance; likewise, the extraordinary federal appeal that was filed was dismissed by the Court of Appeals because it was out of time. 14. Furthermore, the state indicates that, in the case filed ex officio for falsification of a public instrument, the court hearing the case investigated the alleged criminal responsibility of the two experts and convened a plenary session of the Medical Examiners Corps, which issued its ruling on May 21, 1997. According to the state, this plenary “was declared null and void” by the Fourth Chamber of the Criminal Court, because of which another expertise was ordered, which was conducted in the Catholic University of the Province of Córdoba. The state contends that the court acquitted both forensic experts, a ruling that was upheld by the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Court on October 21, 2002. 15. Furthermore, the state points out that, on the basis of the complaint filed by the father of the petitioners, the alleged responsibility of the 31 physicians of the Medical Examiners Corps was investigated, because it was deemed that they falsified their plenary expertise. The state explains that, on April 12, 1999, the court ruled to acquit the 31 physicians accused, a decision that was appealed by the complainant and upheld by the Chamber of Appeals on August 6, 1999. Against said decision, a cassation appeal was filed, which was turned down on October 20, 1999. When the complaint appeal was filed for denial of cassation, the National Criminal Cassation Court ruled to dismiss it on March 30, 2000. Against this decision, the complainant filed an extraordinary federal appeal, which was declared inadmissible. 16. The state alleges that the proceedings filed against the accused medical staff followed due process of law in conformity with the standards required by international human rights law and the American Convention. In that respect, it asserts that there are no elements in the case files that would make it possible to substantiate the failure to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judges or courts who acquitted the accused physicians. It states that the petitioners, as complainants, never recused the judges hearing the case and always benefited from the possibility of submitting all claims they deemed relevant and filed all the procedural remedies established under domestic law. 17. The state points out that the series of expert reports, which the petitioners alleged had been falsified for the purpose of covering up for the medical staff, have been declared null and void under domestic law. The last one of them—conducted by the plenary of the Medical Examiners Corps—was disqualified by the Criminal Court and afterwards a new expertise was ordered, regarding which there seem to be no challenges from the complainants, at least in the briefs of the proceedings. It adds that the mere fact that the medical staff that has been the target of the complaint by the petitioners have not been convicted for the crimes they are charged with, does not tend to establish that judicial guarantees have been violated. 18. The state indicates that the petitioners confine themselves to pointing out that the judgments issued by the various courts were mistaken in their reasoning and that they did not take into account basic facts and evidence to demonstrate the criminal responsibility of the accused. They confine themselves to challenging the assessments of the facts and evidence produced in the cases. 19. As for the alleged violation of the right to life, the state indicates that the facts have not been corroborated in the domestic judicial system, nor have the petitioners provided evidence that would make it possible to demonstrate that Ms. Britez’s death occurred as a result of the alleged malpractice of the medical team of the Hospital Público Sardá. Likewise, it asserts that whether or not malpractice had occurred cannot be determined 3