In this essay, I want to reflect the reality of legal medicine in the work of the Forensic Medicine Council, in which has seen dynamic appearances of new modalities of approximating to the scientific true in the questions made to us. It refloots the hard but successful manner to realize a medical interview with three investigators, shows the elaboration of the evaluation, analyzes the way of a corroot saving vote or dissident vote in one of its members guides over medical views and the participation in the judging processes, and proposes us not to forget that in the Judging Process who emits a different criteria than the consigned in the Forensic Report known by the parts involve is generating right there a new personal and partial Report, able to be fought before the Forensic Medicine Council

Legal Medicine Report; Upper Instance; View; Appellation; Dissident Vote; Judge; Coordinator; Medical Forensic Council; Legal Medicine Department; Colloquia