decision goes against the validity of the title, right, privilege, or exemption on which said clause is based and is the target of litigation. B. Judicial practice in Argentina and the 2005 “Casal” judgment 19. From the above, it turns out that the legal framework applicable at the time of the incidents in the Province of Mendoza envisaged the cassation appeal as a means to appeal a judgment of conviction issued by a judge of the court of first instance. The IACHR recalls that, as described above, the cassation appeal is governed by similar terms in the legislation applicable to the federal capital and in the legislation applicable to the Province of Mendoza. 20. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the judgment known as the “Casal judgment,” issued on September 20, 2005, referred to how the judges and, in particular, the National Courts of Criminal Cassation Appeals restrictively interpreted the scope of the reviewable case on the basis of a cassation appeal. In the words of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation: It is illustrative, for explanatory purposes, to stress that this concept of differentiation between matters of fact and law, defects in iudicando and defects in procedendo, defects of activity, and defects of judgment or any other differential classification on targeted matters has distorted the practice of filing appeals in the National Courts of Cassation Appeals. The complainants, in general, warned about the restrictive policy in admitting appeals, attempt to focus the grievances they are developing on the basis of the formulation of subparagraph 1 of Article 456 of the Criminal Proceedings Code of the Nation, in other words, under the assumption of failure to observe or erroneous application of the substantive law, in case where problems of classification are discussed. The truth is that a large part of these objections introduce and, at the same time, focus on problems that have to do with the facts, evidence, and their appraisal, whether to demonstrate the existence or absence of some element of an objective kind, willful misconduct, or subjective elements other than the willful misconduct comprising the criminal classification. […] it is well known that defenders, aware of the jurisprudential reluctance to discuss the grievances associated with the facts or the evidence and its appraisal in the framework of cassation appeals, tend to force the scope of subparagraph 1 of Article 456 of the Criminal Proceedings Code of the Nation.2 21. Precisely after considering that the distinction between matters of law, on the one hand, and matters of fact or appraisal of evidence, on the other hand, must not determine the scope of the cassation appeal review, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation issued the Casal judgment, whereby it provided a broader interpretation. The Casal judgment provides a highly relevant assessment of the regulatory framework and practice at the time of incidents, and thus certain considerations are presented in the section on analysis of law that are relevant to make the recommendations, specifically about the non-repetition component. 22. Bearing in mind that the relevant proceedings for the present case culminated before the issuance of the Casal judgment, the Commission does not deem it necessary to specify, at the present time, the scope of said ruling. This is without detriment to the considerations that are included in the section on analysis of law and that are relevant for making the recommendations, specifically about the non-repetition component. 2 Casal, Matías Eugenio et al. attempted simple theft, Case No. 1681, Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation, September 20, 2005. 4