he resorted.” The Commission held that given the criminal conviction imposed in the second instance against Mr. Mohamed “the only remedy was the special appeal” and that this “did not provide a timely, accessible and effective review in accordance with the standards [of the Convention],” given that the scope of that review is limited and restricted to matters of patent unconstitutionality and arbitrariness. It also pointed out that the invocation of Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure allows the Supreme Court of Justice to render a discretionary review of the special appeal, since it can reject it “without […]examining the merits of the matter.” For the Commission “[t]he absence of an effective remedy that allows for a review in accordance with the parameters established in the […] Report [on Merits], constitutes a violation by [the State] of its obligation to adopt domestic legal effects enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention.” 67. The Commission also referred to the argument made by Argentina in its answer (infra para. 68) regarding the Court’s alleged inability to examine the merits with regard to Article 8(2)(h), and stated that this is a preliminary matter, even if it was not classified as such by the State. Similarly, regarding the State’s argument that it had stated in “all its replies” in the proceedings before the Commission that Mr. Mohamed did not present an argument regarding the right to appeal the judgment, the Commission indicated that it considers that this allegation was never proposed in order to “provide legal consequences on compliance with the requirements of admissibility of the petition […] nor did it argue that this situation would prevent the Commission from hearing the facts of this case.” In the Commission’s view, the foundation for the argument presented by Argentina before the Court is based on elements of the conventional requirement of admissibility of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which contradicts what was expressly stated in its brief of October 31, 1996, where it affirmed “that domestic remedies have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with the principles of international law as required in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention.” Therefore, the Commission considers the State’s arguments to be time-barred. 68. The representatives of the alleged victim stated that for judicial guarantees to be respected in a criminal proceeding, “the accused must have the opportunity to challenge decisions that cause him harm, such as […] a criminal conviction.” They pointed out that Mr. Mohamed had no remedy available to him under the terms guaranteed by Article 8(2) (h) of the Convention given that, the special federal appeal was the only remedy provided by Argentine procedural law to challenge the conviction in second instance, which “did not allow for a timely, effective, and accessible review.” They stated that the reasons for admitting a special federal appeal are limited to patent unconstitutionality and arbitrariness, which does allow for a review of the facts and the law contained in the judgment. For the representatives, the rejection of the special appeal by the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals, the subsequent denial of the motion for review and the revocation by the Supreme Court of Justice also constituted a violation of [Mr.] Mohamed’s right to [...] be heard on appeal and, therefore, to a fair trial [judicial guarantees].” The representatives likewise agreed with the views of the Commission regarding the obligation to adapt domestic legal effects. 69. The State argued that the Court is unable to hear the merits regarding Article 8(2) (h) of the Convention because Mr. Mohamed “at no time […] alleged [a] violation [of the right to appeal the judgment] upon filing the relevant recourses (special appeal, motion for review and revocation), thereby accepting such a situation, for which reason the State could hardly address, in its domestic proceedings, grievances that were never submitted to its consideration”. Argentina held that “it is not relevant to argue an alleged domestic flaw in the judicial response, since it should be understood that the result in the domestic courts arose from the appellant’s omission to raise such grievances.” In support of this argument, the State referred to a decision handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires in ruling on a motion of unconstitutionality, similar in nature to the special federal appeal, where the “principle of 22