A.1) Judgment of first instance issued by the National Court for Correctional Matters Nº 3, Secretariat Nº 60, of the Federal Capital 45. On August 30, 1994, the National Court on Correctional Matters No. 3 issued a judgment, wherein it decided, inter alia: I) TO ABSOLVE OSCAR ALBERTO MOHAMED of blame and responsibility […] for the crime of manslaughter, defined and punished in Article 84 of the Criminal Code, in which Adelina Vidoni de Urli was a victim. II) WITHOUT COSTS (conf. Article 29, sect. 3 of the Criminal Code and Art. 144 and 496 sect. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). III) REGULATING the professional fees of Dr. Roque Mantione in the amount of […]31. 46. In its considerations regarding Mr. Mohamed’s criminal responsibility, the judgment held, inter alia, “that the version rendered by the accused cannot be rebutted with the onerous plexus of these proceedings.” The court pointed out that it considered, among other evidence, the fact that the individuals who testified did not witness the incident, with the exception of one person, and explained the reasons why it considers that the latter’s account contains contradictions, with one of these contradictions being “serious” and that therefore it “assessed [this person’s] statements […] with great caution.” The court also mentioned that the indictment did not accuse Mr. Mohamed of having disregarded the red traffic light. In this sense, the court stated that “[i]n the presence of the traffic signal, the person with the green light has the right of way, and in this case, there is no evidence to refute the statements made by the defendant, [that] he had right of way along the avenue because there was a green traffic light at that intersection.” It added that it took into account the fact that the person who was run over “was in the middle of the avenue and she was hidden from view by the bus [positioned] to her right.” Next, the court examined the complaint that alleged that Mr. Mohamed was traveling at an excessive speed and, in this regard, it assessed the reports rendered by engineer of the Federal Police’s Traffic Accidents department and of the expert witness for the defense, who concluded that it is possible to stop the bus sharply and suddenly going at 10 km/h, which according to the court contradicts the plaintiff’s position. Finally, the court considered that “while there may be a suspicion in the [court’s interpretation] as to whether or not [Mr. Mohamed] ran the red traffic light, his guilt has not been convincingly proven” and stated that it “[d]oes not find any clear legal proof that would invalidate the original presumption of innocence and that would rule out the ´favor rei’ principle (Art. 13 of the adjectival Code […].”32 A.2) Appeal of the acquittal 47. On August 31, 1994, upon being notified of the acquittal, the prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged an appeal against operative points I and II of the judgment concerning the acquittal and costs (supra para. 44)33. On September 9 and 20, 31 Cf. Judgment issued on August 30, 1994 by the Correctional Court No. 3, Secretariat Federal Capital, supra note 23, page 266. Nº 60, of the 32 Cf. Judgment issued on August 30, 1994 the Correctional Court Nº 3, Secretariat Nº 60, of the Federal Capital (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, pages 252 to 267). 33 Cf. Appeal lodged on August 31, 1994 by the representative of the Public Prosecutor’s against the judgment issued on August 30, 1994 by the Correctional Court Nº 3, Secretariat Nº 60 (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, page 268), and ruling issued on August 30, 1994 by the Correctional Court Nº 3, Secretariat Nº 60, supra note 23, pages 266 and 267. 14