25 representation, in order that their concerns may be ventilated at the appeal level.”64 Access to an adequate defense is especially relevant to the present case. 96. Based on the foregoing considerations of fact and law, particularly since the extraordinary appeal—the only appeal available against Mr. Mohamed’s conviction—limits the examination to certain specific cases, without affording timely, effective, and accessible review, the Commission concludes that the Argentine State violated Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s right to appeal his conviction, as guaranteed in Article 8.2.h of the American Convention. C. Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s right to judicial protection 97. Article 25.1 of the American Convention states: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 98. The IACHR will now analyze whether the courts denied Mr. Mohamed’s right to simple and prompt recourse by declaring the special appeal inadmissible, and rejecting the complaint and revocation motions. 99. In this case the Commission notes that in addition to the failure to review the conviction, the special appeal argued the violation of the principle of non-retroactive application of criminal law, a right established in the American Convention. In this regard, the InterAmerican Court has established that “the terms of Article 25.1 (…) imply the obligation of the States to provide to all persons within their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy for violations of their fundamental rights [... and] for the application of the guarantee recognized therein not only to the rights contained in the Convention, but also to those recognized by the Constitution or laws.65 100. The resolution that declared the special appeal inadmissible, although a resolution of inadmissibility, considered the allegations in limine and decided that inclusion of the cited traffic regulations was a “material error” in the conviction; it interpreted that the conviction was based on violation of the objective duty of care. However, the resolution did not specify the legal grounds for the conviction, or the elements that constitute the objective duty of care. Hence, the resolution did not correct the violation of the principle of legality, and precluded access to an effective remedy that would correct the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention. 101. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that in the instant case there was a violation of Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s right to simple and prompt recourse for protection against the violation of his right to non-retroactive application of criminal law. 464 In this sense see United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 (2007). Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 51. 65 Inter-American Court, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 122; Inter-American Court, Case of Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 128; Inter-American Court, Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 167.