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