to the Commission and not up to this Court, to identify the alleged victims with precision and at the appropriate procedural moment in a case before the Court. 118 Accordingly, the Court will not consider as injured party in this case, Julia Potenza and Javier Oscar, Ariel Alberto, Damián Darío and Daniel Alexis Mohamed Potenza, the relatives of Mr. Mohamed named by the representatives as beneficiaries of the reparations, because they were not considered as such in the Report on the Merits referred to in Article 50 of the American Convention and therefore the allegations of violations119 against them or reparations in their favor are not admissible. B) Guarantee Mr. Mohamed the right to enjoy the right protected under Article 8(2) (h) of the Convention 149. The Commission requested that the State be ordered to “provide the necessary measures for Oscar Alberto Mohamed to file, as soon as possible, an appeal through which he may obtain a comprehensive review of the conviction in compliance with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.” 150. In the brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives of the victim asked that the conviction in second instance that overturned the acquittal in the criminal proceedings, which were conducted in accordance with the procedural law of Argentina, be declared “null and void”, and affirmed that “unless the judicial decisions that rejected the special appeal, the motion for review and revocation [sic] are declared ‘null and void’, the conviction imposed on [Mr.] Mohamed would continue to exist in the records [...] without any chance of obtaining a review by a higher court.” They further indicated that Mr. Mohamed must be provided with a new opportunity to file the appeals that were rejected, so that his conviction may be reviewed and “ [thereby] ensure that the Argentine State rules on the legality and conventionality of the conviction.” 151. The State requested that the Court, upon considering “possible reparations”, limit its ruling to the “damages and detriment that [Mr. Mohamed] may have suffered by being unable to have his conviction reviewed.” It also held that “if the case [were] not dismissed”, “the compensation be set [in a subsidiary] manner based on the principle of equity.” Considerations of the Court 152. The Court reiterates its case law regarding the fact that it does not act as a criminal court that decides on Mr. Mohamed’s guilt or innocence120, but rather has limited itself to determining the compatibility of the criminal proceeding and legal remedies to which he was subject with the American Convention.121 118 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 112, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 29. 119 In the chapter on Reparations in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives asserted that Articles 10, 17, 19, 21.1, 21(2) and 32(1) of the American Convention were violated, but did not present legal arguments in that regard. 120 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 90 and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 55. 121 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120, and Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 62. 41