objective duty of care, a circumstance that has been duly demonstrated in the proceedings and that, as has been noted previously, is not a matter for discussion in this forum.53 56. The aforementioned Decree 692/92, which establishes the Traffic and Transportation Regulations, was published in the Official Gazette No. 27,379 of the Argentine Republic on April 30, 1992.54 B.2) Recurso de queja (motion for review of appeal) 57. If the special federal appeal is declared inadmissible, a “complaint over the appeal denied” can be filed to ask the Supreme Court to grant the denied appeal.55 58. On July 18, 1995, Mr. Mohamed’s defense attorney filed a motion for review with the Supreme Court of Justice “for having been denied the special appeal filed against the final judgment rendered at the second instance,” and requested that the judgment be annulled and a new decision be issued. The defense attorney noted that “the judgment and also the ruling denying the special appeal are arbitrary.” He reiterated his position on the ex post facto application of Decree 692/92 in this case and added that in “[Argentine] legislation there is no offense for “the violation of the objective duty of care” as an autonomous legal definition and that it must be based on “specific regulations.” According to the defense, having referred to the aforementioned decree as the regulatory source, the Chamber “create[d] an autonomous legal definition” since this rule is not applicable to the facts of this case. Regarding the possibility that the Supreme Court “may reject the [special] appeal […]when the matters raised are insubstantial or lacking transcendence” under Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, emphasized that in this case Mr. Mohamed had been convicted subsequent to the annulment of the acquittal rendered at first instance and that “[this] compromised international agreements signed by the country”, regarding which the Supreme Court had recently ordered their application. It further noted that the decision to reject the special appeal violated Article 9 of the American Convention.56 59. On September 19, 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice issued a ruling in which it “reject[ed] the motion for review” given that “the special appeal, whose denial gave rise to the […] complaint, [was] inadmissible (Art. 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure).”57 B.3) Motion for “revocation” 60. On September 27, 1995, Mr. Mohamed’s defense attorney filed a brief before the Supreme Court of Justice calling on it to revoke its decision to dismiss the motion for review. Among other arguments, he stated that by dismissing the motion for review, the 53 Cf. Decision issued on July 4, 1995 by the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters, supra note 52, pages 362 and 363. 54 Cf. Decree 692/92 which approved the “Traffic and Transportation Regulations” of April 27, 1992, published in the Official Bulletin of the Argentine Republic Nº 27.379 on April 30, 1992 (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, pages 40 to 49). 55 Cf. Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (Law 17.454), Articles 282 to 287, supra note 47. 56 Cf. Motion for review “for denial of the appeal” filed by the defense attorney of Oscar Alberto Mohamed ante the Supreme Court of Justice on July 18, 1995 (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, pages 2 to 9). 57 Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, concerning the “Proceeding before the Supreme Court”, states that “[…] The Court, at its own discretion, and based solely on this norm, may reject the [special] appeal for lack of sufficient federal harm or when the questions raised are insubstantial or lacking transcendence. […]”. Cf. Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (Law 17.454), Articles 282 to 287, supra note 47, and decision issued on September 19, 1995 by the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, page 13). 19