8 ensure that drivers have the necessary visibility at all times and be in control of their action.” In other words, the Appeals Court found that Mr. Mohamed’s driving at the time of the accident violated the objective duty of care that must apply to all persons who drive a vehicle on the public streets, which implies the existence of negligence, imprudence, or lack of expertise. 25. The State adds that Article 84 does not have a loose definition of the offense as alleged by the petitioners, because it clearly describes the punishable offense (killing another person) and contains the penalty to be applied, without prejudice to leaving to the court’s discretion the specific conditions of the punishable actions and the range of the penalties between a maximum and minimum. 26. The State notes that, while it was unfortunate that the judgment of the Chamber of Appeals cited traffic regulations contained in Decree 692/92 that was adopted after the traffic accident, this did not constitute retroactive application of criminal law. The regulations referred to generally applicable citizen’s duties reflected already in the traffic regulations contained in Decree 689/45, of 1945 (revalidated in 1985) which establishes the same obligations for motorists in Articles 41, 42, 47, and 49. The State stresses that the error of the National Chamber of Appeals in no way relieved Mr. Mohamed of his responsibilities as a driver, given that both sets of transit regulations prohibited the conduct in question, and that a certain general dutie of care clearly existed at the time of the accident. 27. With respect to the petitioners’ observations that the principles of objective responsibility established in the General Traffic Regulations for roads and streets in the Republic of Argentina (Decree Law No. 12.689/45)2 are inapplicable because there are other more recent regulations on one-way streets and traffic lights, the State says this is not so because Article 99 of the regulations stipulates that “the provisions of these regulations shall not preclude competent local authorities from issuing stricter regulations than those established herein within their respective jurisdictions in the interest of safety, public order or traffic control (…).” The State argues that this text shows that the General Traffic Regulations contained in Decree Law 12.689/45 were, at the time of the facts, the legal norm that established the principles and conduct that all vehicle drivers in Argentina must observe, and that later norms, cited by the petitioners, were issued in accordance with the concepts and spirit of the General Traffic Regulations. 28. The State reiterates that the verdict is not based on the convicted person’s violation of Articles 37, 39, and 40 of Decree Law No. 692/92, but that at the time of the verdict the norm also contains the abovementioned principles of objective responsibility. Therefore, it maintains that the verdict does not violate rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the American Convention. 29. With respect to the right to appeal and to be heard, established in Article 8, the State maintains that Mr. Mohamed was prosecuted at two instances in which all due process guarantees were observed. Accordingly, it considers that the terms of Article 8 were fully respected. The State notes that the special appeal filed subsequent to Mr. Mohamed’s conviction was rejected for failing to present a federal question or to challenge an arbitrary sentence. The State cites Article 2 of Protocol 7 to the European Convention and Article 14.5 of 2 Decree 12.689/45 Article 65: “Any driver of a vehicle or mount must drive it under full control based on the width of the road or street, traffic density, signage, weather, visibility, and other conditions of the road or street, and the degree of development in the area.” 0 Article 47: “(…) Additional serious infractions against the safety of persons are (…) overtaking in alleys, intersections, curves, hilltops, and in general overtaking another vehicle in any circumstances when the maneuver may disrupt the normal flow of other vehicles and could thereby or by other means jeopardize third parties.”