line 2 bus stop to the beginning of the intersection with Piedras” [street], which would prove that “the maneuver described by Mohamed, of turning left and proceeding past [bus] 103 is correct [… and that] he did so more than 70 meters from the intersection and without causing any inconvenience to traffic”; and iv) that the ruling was based “on dogmatic statements, which are not consistent with the facts or with the law.”49 54. On April 7, 1995, the Prosecutor of Chamber No. 1 filed a report in which he considered it appropriate to “reject the special appeal”, because the doctrine of arbitrariness invoked by the defense counsel “is of an exceptional nature" and "[its] automatic concession would require opening a third ordinary instance where the parties would consider the decision rendered by the judges in the case mistaken.” As to the citing of Decree 692/92 in the judgment, the prosecutor stated that “although [said regulation] is not applicable, the final decision does not differ from the one that would have been reached on the basis of traffic regulations in effect at the time of the event, which contain similar guidelines to the objective duty of care because they pertain to the general rules of conduct, manner of passing other vehicles and the right of way of pedestrians […].”50On April 27, 1995, the plaintiff’s representative filed an answer brief in response to the special appeal filed by Mr. Mohamed’s defense lawyer, calling on the Chamber to reject the appeal.51 55. On July 4, 1995, the First Chamber of the Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters issued a ruling in which it decided to “reject the special appeal” and ordered the appellant to “pay costs.”52 The Court held, inter alia, that the arguments presented by the defense “refer to matters of fact, evidence and common law, that were assessed and debated in the challenged judgment” and that this remedy “does not seek to make the Supreme Court of Justice a third ordinary instance, nor to correct erroneous or allegedly erroneous decisions.” The Court emphasized that this remedy “seeks to address exceptional cases in which the total absence of a legal basis prevents consideration of the ruling of the ordinary judges as a judgment based on law, with reference to Arts. 17 and 18 of the National Constitution […]”. Next, the Court stated that: [a]lthough the Court has made a material error in citing [said] decree, which was not in force at the time of the incident, the conviction of the defendant is based on the violation of the 49 Cf. Among which the defense emphasized the following: a) the ruling stated that Mr. Mohamed should not have begun overtaking “before an intersection”, when, according to his defense counsel, the overtaking “complied with all required preventive measures” and was done when Mr. Mohamed was 76.06 meters from where the accident occurred; and b) the ruling is not logical in reasoning that Mr. “Mohamed had voluntarily deprived himself of any possibility of not hitting the victim”. On this last point, the defense counsel stated that “it is obvious that passing parallel to another vehicle, in an avenue with five or six lanes, it is not possible to see to the sides” and that “[p]recisely Avenida Belgrano, with one-way multi-lane traffic, is made for all lanes to be used and for vehicles to move at different speeds or at the same speed if traffic conditions so require.” According to the defense attorney, the lack of logic in the reasoning of the conviction “is evident if we imagine that in all avenues with traffic light signals, all vehicles that do not have visibility to the sides must break.” Cf. Appeal filed on March 13, 1995 by the defense counsel of Mr. Oscar Alberto Mohamed against the Judgment issued on February 22,1995 by the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, pages 343 and 344). 50 Cf. Prosecutor’s report presented on April 7, 1995 by the Prosecutor of the Chamber regarding the special appeal filed by Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s defense attorney (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, pages 351 and 352). 51 Cf. Answer brief submitted on April 27, 1995 by the plaintiff’s representative against the special appeal lodged by the defense counsel of Mr. Oscar Alberto Mohamed (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, page 360). 52 Cf. Decision issued on July 4, 1995 by the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, page 363). 18