13 56. As for the grounds for a constitutionality challenge, Article 489 of the Mendoza Provincial Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the conditions under which such appeals may be filed: An appeal on constitutionality grounds may be filed against the final judgments or decrees mentioned in Article 475, when the constitutionality of a law, decree, regulation or decision that regulates a matter governed by the Constitution is being challenged and the ruling or the order of the court is not in the petitioner’s favor. 57. On the complaint motion, Article 491 of the Mendoza Provincial Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: When a petition to be filed with another court is improperly denied, the petitioner may file a complaint with that court to have it declare that the petition was improperly denied. 3. Judicial practice in Argentina and the “Casal” ruling in 2005 58. Thus, at the time of the events in this case and under the applicable laws in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and Mendoza Province, the cassation motion was the appropriate remedy to appeal a conviction by a lower-court judge. The Commission notes that the language of the National Code of Criminal Procedure and the Mendoza Provincial Code of Criminal Procedure is virtually identical in setting forth the circumstances under which a cassation motion may be filed. The Commission believes that some discussion of the generalized interpretation of the scope of a cassation motion might be instructive in this section for purposes of its assessment, in the legal analysis section, as to whether the facts of the case fit within the practice of the courts. 59. In the ruling known as the “Casal judgment,” the Supreme Court of the Nation made reference to how narrowly judges –particularly those in the National Chamber of Criminal Cassationdefine which matters are subject to review on a cassation motion. In the words of the Supreme Court: For expository purposes, it might be useful to show that this distinction between matters of fact and matters of law, judicial error and procedural error, procedural flaws and flaws in a ruling, or any other kind of distinction on matters for consideration, has perverted the practice of motions filed with the National Court of Cassation. In general, petitioners are aware of the narrow admissibility policy, and therefore endeavor to file their motions on the grounds set forth in subparagraph 1 of Article 456 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., as a claim of a failure to observe or correctly apply the substantive law, in cases in which subsumption issues are discussed. The truth is that the vast majority of these cases raise and discuss problems related to the facts, the evidence, and the assessment of both the facts and the evidence, to demonstrate either the existence or nonexistence of any objective element, of any willful misconduct or subjective elements apart from willful misconduct that are part of the definition of a criminal offense. (…) Knowing that the courts of cassation are reluctant to examine grievances having to do with the facts or the evidence and their assessment, defense attorneys have a tendency to stretch the 10 scope of subparagraph of Article 456 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure. 60. Precisely after observing that the distinction between matters of law on the one hand and matters of fact or assessment of evidence on the other ought not to determine the scope of review on cassation, on September 20, 2005 the Supreme Court of the Nation issued the Casal judgment in which it delivered a broader interpretation when compared to the practice described in the preceding paragraph. Because the pertinent proceedings in the present case had already culminated at the time the Casal 10 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Case No. 1681. Matías Eugenio Casal et al. Ruling of September 20, 2005.