5. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the petition, received on April 1, 1996, by
note of April 8, 1996. Processing of the petition was initiated on April 29, 1996, the
date on which the pertinent parts of the petition were transmitted to the State with the
request that all relevant information be presented within 90 days.
6. The petitioners presented a brief communication on June 25, 1996, which was
incorporated in the file. The State requested extensions to present its response by
notes of July 23, August 20 and September 25, 1996. These requests were granted for
30, 30 and 21 days, respectively. The Government presented its response on October
24, 1996, and the petitioners presented their observations on that response by note of
November 25, 1996.
7. By notes of January 15, February 17 and March 31, 1997, the State requested
additional time to respond to the petitioners’ observations, and was in each instance
granted 30 days. The State presented its response on May 15, 1997. The petitioners
presented observations on that response on June 27, 1997.
8. By note of August 27, 1998, the State presented additional observations. On
November 3, 1998, the petitioners requested an additional 15 days to respond. The
request was granted, and the additional observations were received on December 7,
1998.
9. The State presented observations in response on February 17, 1999. The petitioners
presented additional observations on April 20, 1999. On July 8, 1999, the State
requested an extension in order to file additional observations, and was granted 30
days. The State presented those observations on August 18, 1999. The petitioners
submitted a response on October 28, 1999.
10. The Commission received additional observations from the State on January 10,
2000. By note of February 10, 2000, the petitioners requested an additional 30 days to
present a response. The request was granted and the response was received on March
22, 2000. On April 11, 2000, the State requested an extension to respond, and on
April 28, 2000 presented a brief response. The petitioners presented observations on
July 6, 2000. On August 24, 2000, the State requested an extension to respond. By
note of August 31, 2000, the State presented a brief response, and by note of October
26, 2000 presented additional observations. Finally, by note of September 10, 2002,
the petitioners requested an update on the processing of the petition.
III.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A.

The Petitioners

11. The petitioners indicate that, on March 16, 1992, Oscar Mohamed, a bus driver in
the City of Buenos Aires, was involved in a traffic accident while working on his line.
While Mr. Mohamed was driving his bus through an intersection, he struck a
pedestrian, who died of her injuries. Mr. Mohamed was subsequently charged and tried
for negligent homicide (homicidio culposo) under the Criminal Code. The judgment at
first instance, issued on August 30, 1994, absolved Mr. Mohamed of criminal
responsibility.
12. The prosecution and the private claimant appealed the acquittal before the First
Chamber of the Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters. The defense

Select target paragraph3