determined that the remedy sought should be dismissed as “formally inadmissible.”51 A.4 Extraordinary Federal Appeal 37. On February 24, 1998, Mr. Gorigoitía's defense attorney filed an extraordinary federal appeal (hereinafter also “extraordinary appeal” or “REF”) against the decision of the Second Chamber to reject the cassation appeal.52 The defense requested annulment of the judgment of the Second Chamber rejecting the cassation appeal, asking that a new judgment be issued “in accordance with the law.”53 Mr. Gorigoitía’s defense attorney indicated that the judgments of the Criminal Chamber and the Supreme Court were arbitrary for the following reasons:54 (a) the gross negligence attributed to the actions of the accused was never proven;55 (b) the legal situation of Gorigoitía should have been assessed in light of the principle of in dubio pro reo when deciding whether the criminal offense to be prosecuted was murder or manslaughter,56 and (c) the criterion for assessing the evidence used by the Sentencing Court was “based purely and exclusively on the subjectivism of the judges who also deviated […] from the facts, from good sense, and from the rules of sound judicial discretion,”57 for which reason it was also not well-founded.58 38. On March 11, 1998, the Procurator General of the Supreme Court of Mendoza (hereinafter “Procurator General”) concluded that the extraordinary appeal should be declared admissible. He indicated that “the complaint should be admitted: […since] the route used by the defendant was substantially restricted without suitable or sufficient justification, amounting to a violation of due process […].”59 Likewise, he invoked Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, and Article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, indicating that "the guarantee of appeal has been enshrined very broadly in favor of the accused and cannot be limited or restricted for the sake of preserving excessive formal requirements.”60 39. On March 31, 1998, the Supreme Court of Mendoza rejected the extraordinary appeal, stating the following: (a) that the plaintiff is not challenging a judgment but rather an “order” issued by the Second Chamber whereby it formally rejects the appeal because it does not meet the requirements expressly established by the Mendoza criminal procedural law and case law;61 (b) that the claims on which the extraordinary appeal is based should not refer to the trial court judgment, but to that of the appeals court;62 (c) that the doctrine of arbitrariness is not intended to correct erroneous judgments in the third instance, or judgments that the appellant considers as such based on their disagreement with the interpretation of the facts and law issued by the Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File No. 63,145: “Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Guerrero, Oscar” Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza, December 19, 1997 (evidence file, folio 161). 52 Cf. Extraordinary appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on February 24, 1998, before the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza (evidence file, folio 176). 53 Cf. Extraordinary appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on February 24, 1998, before the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza (evidence file, folio 176). 54 Cf. Extraordinary appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on February 24, 1998, before the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza (evidence file, folio 185). 55 Cf. Extraordinary appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on February 24, 1998, before the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza (evidence file, folio 185). 56 Cf. Extraordinary appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on February 24, 1998, before the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza (evidence file, folio 187). 57 Cf. Extraordinary appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on February 24, 1998, before the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza (evidence file, folios 189 and 190). 58 Cf. Extraordinary appeal, filed by Adolfo V. Moreno, defense attorney of Oscar Raúl Gorigoitía, on February 24, 1998, before the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza (evidence file, folio 195). 59 Cf. Office of the Procurator General of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza. Response to the extraordinary appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, March 11, 1998 (evidence file, folio 200). 60 Cf. Office of the Procurator General of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza. Response to the extraordinary appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, March 11, 1998 (evidence file, folio 201). 61 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Mendoza, File No. 62,145: “Civil party and Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Guerrero, Oscar Raúl,” March 31, 1998 (evidence file, folio 205). 62 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Mendoza, File No. 62,145: “Civil party and Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Guerrero, Oscar Raúl,” March 31, 1998 (evidence file, folio 206). 51 12