also fired two shots at the vehicle of Mr. Gómez Romagnoli. “The first did not hit the target and the second hit the right rear tire and was the one that caused the car to stop immediately.”40 The defense asked “[…] if Corporal Sarmiento's actions are justified, why not those of Gorigoitía?”41 Lastly, the defense questioned the legal assertion of gross negligence because "it is based on the personality of the accused, and on the violation of police regulations."42 35. The First Chamber granted the appeal and referred the proceedings to the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza (hereinafter the “Supreme Court of Mendoza”), which would decide on the merits of the matter.43 On December 19, 1997, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Mendoza (hereinafter “the Second Chamber”) ruled to deny the cassation appeal for lack of justification and no specific definition of claim.44 In this regard, the Second Chamber stated that the appeal "must be justified and the grounds must be given by the appellant in the same filing brief, specifically determining the claim both in relation to the flaw alleged and the law on which it is based.”45 Specifically, the Second Chamber found as follows: The remedy cannot be grounded generically; when a judgment is alleged to lack justification, the flaw in question must be identified, with specific reference to a reasonable possibility of evidence that was illegal or omitted from the reasoning of the lower court”46 [...] “the appellant makes a generic reference to the circumstance that the negligence has not been proven in the ruling without questioning any evidence or language of the judgment [...]”. “Regarding the substantive grounds alleged, the claim should be dismissed ‘in limine’ because the arguments for the appeal show, altogether, a discrepancy in judgment on the part of the appellant insofar as the criteria of the Chamber for evidentiary material incorporated legally into the dispute, as the Cassation Court cannot review or judge the grounds for a conviction issued by the a-quo Court [...].”47 36. The Second Chamber added that "the Chamber has clearly, completely, and amply justified the finding of gross negligence in the conduct of the accused" for which it quoted verbatim the reasoning of the First Chamber.48 It likewise indicated that the Chamber reviewed the claim that the accused had acted with an unintentional lack of due diligence, a possibility ruled out given that the “evidence of guilt gathered, […] shows another reality of what happened, much more burdensome.”49 It indicated that “the disregard for the result of a serious action like targeting a moving vehicle from another that is chasing it, with a large-caliber and long-range weapon, while being aware of the damaging power of its projectiles, rules out any unintentionality [...] and adequately meets the standard typically required for gross negligence [...].”50 Consequently, it 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). 41 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 152). .42 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 154). 43 Cf. Judgment of the Judiciary of Mendoza, File No. 16,093 and joinder of civil action and Prosecutor v. Gorigoitía Guerrero, Oscar R. regarding Murder,” September 29, 1997 (evidence file, folio 903). 44 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 159). 45 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 159). 46 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 159). 47 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 160). 48 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 160). 49 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). 50 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). 40 11