homicide […] with an inexcusable indifference to the possible harmful result. Gorigoitía understood the weapon and knew the consequences of using it during a high-speed chase, what the likely result would be, and despite this, he fired under these conditions."30 31. The First Chamber indicated that Mr. Gorigoitía did not act under conditions that would have warranted the use of firearms according to the Police Regulations.31 It also found that it could not be justified by observation if Mr. Gorigoitía acted negligently but rather it had to be deduced from external conjecture, given that “to affirm the existence of negligence in a court of law, facts, circumstances, and the phenomena representing it must be described.”32 The First Chamber found that “[Mr.] Gorigoitía must answer for the death of Hugo Alejandro Gómez in view of his gross negligence [...]”33 based on the fact that “the possible outcome (death) was represented and caused by his selfishness when he ignored the order not to use weapons, firing repeatedly with the two weapons provided (Itaka, 9mm).”34 32. The First Chamber took into account a psychological examination conducted by the Forensic Medical Corps stating that Mr. Gorigoitía was "immature, self-centered, with a tendency to handle the environment and difficulty adapting to external demands and limits." It also indicated that he “has difficulty handling situations rationally, perceiving interrelationships as competitive, aggressive, unreliable, and out of control. All this leads to insecurity and mistrust.” 35 Likewise, it indicated that “considering this personality in light of the facts in question […], his actions are a true reflection of his personality.”36 A.3 Cassation appeal 33. On September 29, 1997, Mr. Gorigoitía's public defender filed a cassation appeal requesting the annulment of the conviction.37 The appeal argued a lack of grounds, stating that: “[…] negligence is a fact and as such must be proven like any other fact. Nowhere in the facts stated in the sentence has the court been able to demonstrate the existence of this element required for guilt. Simply calling something negligence or describing the circumstances surrounding what happened on the night of August 31, 1996, is insufficient. […] Each legal assertion must be proven by its immediate antecedent and […] the proof must be supported by facts that amount 'reasonably to legal consequences' and not the mere assertion of it38 […] Negligence is a psychological fact interior to the perpetrator, and hinges on his intentions […].”39 34. Mr. Gorigoitía's defense attorney also asserted the arbitrariness of the lower court conviction, stating that “with the same arguments put forward to convict Mr. Raúl Oscar Gorigoitía of the crime of simple homicide […] it excludes Sergeant Hugo Felix Sarmiento from any suspicion,” who Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File 16,073 “Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Oscar Raúl for Murder” and its joindered case, Deliberation Room of the First Criminal Chamber, September 12, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4). 31 Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File 16,073 “Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Oscar Raúl for Murder” and its joindered case, Deliberation Room of the First Criminal Chamber, September 12, 1997 (evidence file, folios 13 and 14). 32 Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File 16,073 “Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Oscar Raúl for Murder” and its joindered case, Deliberation Room of the First Criminal Chamber, September 12, 1997 (evidence file, folio 86). 33 Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File 16,073 “Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Oscar Raúl for Murder” and its joindered case, Deliberation Room of the First Criminal Chamber, September 12, 1997 (evidence file, folio 86). 34 Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File 16,073 “Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Oscar Raúl for Murder” and its joindered case, Deliberation Room of the First Criminal Chamber, September 12, 1997 (evidence file, folio 89). 35 Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File 16,073 “Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Oscar Raúl for Murder” and its joindered case, Deliberation Room of the First Criminal Chamber, September 12, 1997 (evidence file, folio 86). 36 Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File 16,073 “Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Oscar Raúl for Murder” and its joindered case, Deliberation Room of the First Criminal Chamber, September 12, 1997 (evidence file, folio 87). 37 Cf. Criminal Cassation Appeal Judgment, presented before the First Criminal Chamber of Mendoza, September 29, 1997 (evidence file, folios 134 et seq.). 38 Cf. Criminal Cassation Appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on September 29, 1997, before the First Criminal Chamber of Mendoza (evidence file, folio 150). 39 Cf. Criminal Cassation Appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on September 29, 1997, before the First Criminal Chamber of Mendoza (evidence file, folio 151). 30 10