SC ruling mentioned the dogs
Page 19:
"2 – Fundamental principles
1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proved :
.....
"6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club (al.AR).
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants KMC and GMC after Madeleine's disappearance (al.AS)."
Page 56:
"Before, however, the relevant facts to be taken into account in deciding the question referred to above shall be listed below :
5. The claimant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007, and the criminal investigation has not been carried out by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Republic of the region of Portimão.
6. The dogs of the British police 'Eddie and Keela' have detected human blood and body odours in the Ocean Club apartment 5-A.
7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants KMC and GMC after Madeleine's disappearance."
I'm not sure what the question is being referred to, but they take the uncorroborated dog alerts to be some sort of evidence, well they call it a fact, which it is but what do they make from that fact?
Maybe they use it to confirm "Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and in particular the following : Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of 3 May 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children."
So it is Tavares that makes the initial error of converting the dog alerts into evidence.