constitutional issues invoked.” They also “affirmed, improperly, that due to a ‘material error’ they based their conviction on a traffic regulation that was not in effect at the time of the incident”. The representatives argued that said judges did not have jurisdiction to rule on these issues but rather only “to formally accept or reject the appeal.” Referring to the guarantee to provide solid grounds, the representatives pointed out that Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure is contrary to the American Convention, since the terms used in this norm encompass an enormous margin of imprecision and “appear to ensure [...] complete arbitrariness on the part of the highest Argentine Court to choose the cases it seeks to rule upon.” The representatives considered that invoking reasons of insubstantiality and lack of transcendence regarding a constitutional violation to deny access to justice, “acquires an unacceptable magnitude when, due to that transgression, the punitive mechanism is enabled”, and they argued that Article 280 as rule of civil procedure should not be used with respect to exceptional remedies within a criminal proceeding. 74. In response to the Supreme Court’s alleged discretion to reject an appeal, the State argued that this “does not violate any judicial guarantee, since no right exists to have the Supreme Court of a country review all the cases referred to it, neither at the domestic nor the international levels.” It explained that with Law 23774 of 1990, "Argentine certiorari" was introduced, which contains “in its various versions, the negative to forestall a review, [and] the positive to open one. B.4) Alleged violation to the right to judicial protection (Article 25(1) of the Convention) 75. The Commission held that Mr. Mohamed, in addition to seeking a review of the conviction imposed on him for the first time in the second instance, filed the special federal appeal with the intention that the “violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law, a right enshrined in the American Convention,” be heard, but that when the court handed down the decision of inadmissibility of the appeal, “it assessed the allegation in limine” declaring that “the inclusion of the […] traffic regulation [Decree 692/92] was a ‘material error�� in the conviction, interpreting that the conviction was based on a violation of the objective duty of care.” The Commission held that this meant that “the violation of the principle of legality was not remedied, while closing off access to an effective remedy […,] violating the right to have access to a simple and prompt recourse that would protect him against a violation of his right to the non-retroactivity of criminal law.” 76. The representatives argued that “[t]he State of Argentina […] denied [Mr.] Mohamed his right to a simple and prompt recourse, by declaring inadmissible the special appeal and then [declaring] inadmissible the remedies of review and revocation.” 77. The State pointed out that “Mr. Mohamed was afforded the opportunity to challenge the conviction, which the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victim consider violates the principle of legality, through the special appeal rejected by the National Court of Appeals.” Similarly, it affirmed that “the Inter-American Commission [may] not share the content of the ruling challenged, but it cannot infer from it that Mr. Mohamed was not guaranteed access to a simple and prompt recourse, given that the effectiveness of a remedy has to do with its potential capacity to produce the result required in order to protect the right, but does not guarantee a particular outcome.” Similarly, the State pointed out that “Mr. Mohamed had at his disposal a prompt and simple recourse to complain about matters which in his view have caused him harm [, … but] he did not use it”, since the violation of this guarantee is a federal matter, and if Mr. Mohamed had argued so, the highest domestic court could have ruled on the matter, which “shows that in this situation it cannot be asserted that the 24