This established, we see that Mohamed, failing to exercise reasonable care to guarantee third party assets, started up his bus in order to pass to the left of another bus, so that when he was behind he voluntarily deprived himself of any possibility of preventing a collision with the pedestrian who was still crossing on the crosswalk, unlike the bus of line 103 which, by maintaining the necessary field of view from his position, avoided a collision. This suffices to demonstrate the criminal liability of the conduct. But there is more (...) [The witness testimony is reasonable and indicates] that the victim started crossing with the green light about to change, arriving at the intersection and passing the other bus, and the defendant at the same time anticipating the yellow light, which explains why the other driver could brake and avoid colliding with the victim, unlike the defendant’s vehicle. This shows not only the obstructed vision described by the defendant himself, but also a certain unwarranted speed of his bus to reach the corner and pass the other bus, which is not idle speculation because the fracture of the left clavicle and the fracture of all the ribs on the left side –the side on which the victim was hit – as well as the fracture of the second and seventh ribs on the right side and the open wound in the right occipital area (...) obviously could not have been caused by a simple touch of the front bumper, especially when, as Mohamed claims, he was driving the bus at 10 km/h and applied his breaks before that “touch.” For all the foregoing reasons, I do not agree that in a case such as this one the defendant’s guilt is in doubt merely because the testimony of the only witness who spoke of a green light for the victim was discarded. This does not mean that the green light would legitimize the previous imprudence of the defendant. And I do not agree with the conclusion that the evidence has not been able to discard the defendant’s version, which I have just shown, is virtually a confession of reckless conduct, even more reprehensible for someone like the defendant who, as a professionally licensed bus driver, had a greater obligation to avoid risks to third parties and preserve the property of others, a responsibility that must be exercised with the utmost caution, prudence and reason. (...) As a corollary, I feel that Mohamed’s characteristic, illegal and punishable conduct, without mitigating grounds of justification, non-prosecution, inculpability or impunity, should be sanctioned with a penalty (...) I propose that points I and II of the verdict be revoked and be applied to the defendant, as author of the crime of manslaughter (...)1 [Operative section] (...) II) To revoke operative point I of the appealed judgment (...) and CONVICT OSCAR ALBERTO MOHAMED, of the other personal conditions in the instant case because of his criminal responsibility for the crime of manslaughter, and to sentence him to THREE YEARS IN PRISON, suspended, and to DISQUALIFY HIM FROM DRIVING any type of vehicle for EIGHT YEARS (Articles 26 and 84 of the Criminal Code) (...) 4. Legal norm applied. The legal provision applied is Article 84 of the Argentine Criminal Code, in effect since April 30, 19222 (amended by Decree Law 21.338, of 25-VI19763), which states the following: Any person who, through imprudence, negligence or incompetence in his or her art or profession, or failure to observe the regulations or duties under his or her responsibility, causes the death of another, shall be punished with six months to three years in prison and special disqualification, as appropriate, for five to ten years. Clearly, the application of that law in itself cannot have implied a violation of the principle of legality or non-retroactivity, because the action attributed to Mr. Mohamed took place on March 16, 1992 and the legal provision applied (the modified text regarding the penalty) was in effect since 1976 and (the original text regarding its definition and culpability) was in force since 1922. This law clearly defines the behavior sanctioned, consisting in causing death to another, provided that the outcome has been produced by one or another of the following grounds (or by more than one of them): a) Imprudence; 1   Text  from  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 submitted by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012).  2  The Argentine Criminal Code was approved on September 30, 1921, promulgated by the Executive Power on October 29, 1921, and came  into force on April 30, 1922.  3  The amendment was the following: “In Art. 84 replace the following phrase: "six (6) months to two (2) years", with "six (6) months to  thee (3) years".”  2