REPORT Nº 2/05
PETITION 11.618
ADMISSIBILITY
OSCAR ALBERTO MOHAMED
ARGENTINA
February 22, 2005
I.

SUMMARY

1. The present report addresses the admissibility of petition 11.618. The InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “Inter-American Commission,”
“Commission” or “IACHR”) initiated processing pursuant to receipt of a petition dated
March 18, 1996, filed by Oscar Alberto Mohamed and attorney Roque J. Mantione
(hereinafter “the petitioners”) against the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter
“Argentina” or “State”).
2. The petitioners indicate that Mr. Mohamed was involved in a traffic accident in 1992,
which left one person dead, and was subsequently tried for the crime of negligent
homicide. He was acquitted at first instance. On appeal, he was convicted and
sentenced to a three-year suspended prison term, and disqualified from driving any
vehicle for eight years. The petitioners contend that the court of second instance based
its conviction on legislation adopted subsequent to the facts. Mr. Mohamed sought to
challenge his conviction by filing extraordinary appeals, but the petitioners indicate
that these remedies were rejected absent any review of the merits of his claims. The
petitioners contend that the facts alleged constitute violations of the right to due
process and to be free from ex post facto laws under Articles 8 and 9 of the American
Convention, in conjunction with the general guarantees under Article 1 of that
instrument.
3. The State, for its part, indicates that Mr. Mohamed was convicted in accordance with
the requirements of national and international law. It maintains that Mr. Mohamed had
access to two instances of review, namely before the courts of first and second
instance. The State considers that neither national nor international law required
additional instances of review following Mr. Mohamed’s conviction at second instance.
The State maintains that the conviction was imposed in accordance with the terms of
its Criminal Code, adopted prior to the facts. The State argues that the petition is
inadmissible for failing to set forth a cognizable violation. It further argues that the
Commission is not competent to act as a “fourth instance” of review with respect to
questions of fact or law that pertain to the jurisdiction of the national legal system.
4. As set forth in this Report, having examined the contentions of the parties on the
question of admissibility, and without prejudicing the merits of the matter, the
Commission has decided to declare the petition admissible with respect to the alleged
violations of Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the
general obligations enshrined in Articles 1 and 2 of that treaty, to transmit this Report
to the parties, to continue with the analysis of the merits of the case, and to publish
this Report and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States.
II.

PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION

Select target paragraph3