57. As an example, in the cassation appeal, it was indicated that “willful misconduct is a fact and as such it was not proven.” It also argued that it was inadequate to use evidence about the personality of the accused to show that it was related to the willful misconduct. The defense added in the cassation appeal that, in his opinion, Mr. Gorigoitia breached the rules of the Police Force Manual, with recklessness and absence of caution. This appraisal of the facts by the defense led to the argument, as indicated, that willful misconduct was not proven. 58. Bearing in mind that the cassation appeal was declared “formally inadmissible” by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza, in accordance with the Criminal Procedures Code of the Province of Mendoza, the IACHR considers that the arguments put forth by the defense questioning aspects of fact and appraisal of evidence were considered by said court as obviously inadmissible. Therefore the court did not begin to analyze the allegations of the merits but rather they were inadmissible in limine. This judicial authority’s ruling on the cassation appeal includes motives highlighting that dismissal of the appeals was due to the judicial practice of restrictively interpreting the regulation governing cassation appeals. 59. Thus, the IACHR stresses that the Second Chamber itself indicated that it “could not reexamine or judge the motives comprising the conviction of the lower Court.” The Second Chamber then contended that the appeal had to be dismissed in limine because the arguments of the defense “reveal, in short, the discrepancy of the complainant’s assessment with the ruling of the chamber in connection with the evidence incorporated legally into the discussion.” The Commission also underscores that the Second Chamber is confined to determining if the Chamber’s judgment was motivated, providing a record of said motivation in the points of law alleged by the defense but without conducting any assessment on said motivation let alone a second court ratification (doble conforme) in terms of its contents. 60. As indicated earlier, the cassation appeal is the ordinary remedy to be filed against a judgment of conviction, and therefore it is the main one that must be analyzed in the light of Article 8.2 h) of the Convention. 61. The above is consistent with what was indicated by the IACHR and the Inter-American Court regarding the extraordinary appeal, which is ruled upon by the same court that issued the judgment that is being challenge and, if it is admitted, its merits are decided by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.52 In particular, the Court indicated that said remedy does not constitute a way to challenge criminal proceedings and that “the causal elements that condition the admissibility of such a remedy are limited to review issues relating to the validity of a law, treaty, or constitutional provision, or the arbitrariness of a judgment, factual and evidentiary issues, as well as those of a non-constitutional legal nature.”53 62. Without detriment to the above, the Commission also takes into account that the extraordinary appeal filed by Mr. Gorigoitia was declared formally inadmissible by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Mendoza, following the doctrine of arbitrariness drawn up by the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina. This inadmissibility was ratified afterwards by this High Court with a ruling of inadmissibility for the complaint appeal. Thus the extraordinary appeal was dismissed in limine. 63. By virtue of the considerations above, the Commission concludes that Mr. Gorigoitia did not benefit from any appeal filed before a higher-ranking authority that would conduct a comprehensive review of the judgment of conviction against him, including issues of fact and appraisal of evidence alleged by the 52 Inter-American Court. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 103. See also: IACHR, Report No. 173/10, Case 11.618, Oscar Alberto Mohammed, Merits, Argentina, April 13, 2011. 53 Inter-American Court. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 104. 13