that Mr. Gorigoitia was Staff Sergeant of the Police Force of Mendoza and that, during a police chase after an unidentified motor vehicle, the driver of said vehicle died as a result of shots fired from a firearm. The details of the incidents and the domestic proceedings shall be referred to in the section of Determination of Facts, on the basis of information provided by both parties. 7. In connection with the alleged violation of the right to appeal a judgment, the petitioner argued that the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) had limitations in terms of the regulatory framework and practice, because it did not have the necessary characteristics to benefit from the right to a second hearing. It pointed out that said appeal only allowed the review of procedural aspects and not a comprehensive review, including appraisal of the evidence by the court of first instance. It indicated that this situation also constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection. 8. The petitioner also alleged that the State failed to fulfill its duty to adopt domestic law provisions taking into account the limited and nonconventional nature of the cassation appeal in the regulatory framework and domestic practice. B. Allegations of the State 9. The State of Argentina did not submit its observations on the merits of the case. In the admissibility stage, the State denied its international responsibility and indicated that the criminal proceedings respected due process of law for Mr. Gorigoitia. It explained that the conviction was in conformity with the law because “all evidence presented conspicuously showed that Gorigoitia had a clear idea of the possible outcome (the death of young man Gómez) and, ignoring the order not to use arms, he repeatedly fired the two arms provided.” 10. It contended that the cassation appeal was declared inadmissible and that the “Court of Cassation Appeals cannot re-examine or judge the reasons that led to the judgment conviction by the lower court.” The State added that the appeal that was filed was dismissed “arguing that there were formal defects in the filing and establishing that the causes invoked by the defense were not deemed suitable for the Court’s review.” 11. The State alleged that the petitioner intends to indicate the presumed arbitrariness of a final judgment solely on the basis of its disagreement with it. It indicated that the IACHR cannot act as a “fourth instance” to review judgments under domestic law that have been issued adequately. IV. DETERMINATIONS OF FACT A. The relevant criminal procedural legal framework in terms of remedies 12. In this section, the relevant legal framework for the appeals filed by Mr. Gorigoitia against the judgment of conviction for the crime of manslaughter shall be described. 13. Article 474 of the Criminal Procedures Code of the Province of Mendoza (Código Procesal Penal de la Provincia de Mendoza—hereinafter the “CPPM”), with contents almost identical to those of Article 456 of the Criminal Procedures Code of the Argentine Nation (Código Procesal Penal de la Nación Argentinahereinafter the “CPPN”), governs the admissibility of the cassation appeal on the basis of the following terms: Reasons. The cassation appeal can be filed on the basis of the following reasons: 1) Failure to observe or erroneous application of substantive law. 2) Failure to observe the standards set by the present Code under penalty of inadmissibility, expiration, or quashing, as long as the complainant, except in cases of absolute quashing, had filed a claim, on a timely basis, to remedy the defect, if possible, or had protested to file a cassation appeal. 2