imprudence, negligence or incompetence in his art or profession, as well as in an analysis of Mr. Mohamed’s specific conduct. This alone was sufficient to configure the crime of manslaughter (with the exception indicated at the end of the preceding paragraph). That judgment did not state that Mr. Mohamed had failed to observe certain provisions of the aforesaid decree, but mentioned it as the part of Argentine legislation containing the principles or “standards of care” or “objective standards of prevention” and “of international practice”, which “are not at the disposal of individuals and therefore are not abrogated by lack of use.” Thus, it cannot be said that the judgment of the Chamber integrated the criminal definition retroactively applying a decree not in force, or that it used it as the basis for the judgment. Nevertheless, the reference to a decree not in force at the time of the facts is a serious error that must be strictly pointed out. 7. Conclusion. As noted previously, the legal norms applied were in force long before the facts of this case; these norms stipulated that the duty of care should be observed and referred to the concepts of imprudence, negligence and incompetence; in its judgment, the Chamber explained the points of fact and of law that in its view demonstrated “the defendant’s recklessness in driving the vehicle for which he was responsible” and that Mr. Mohamed had acted “failing to exercise reasonable care to guarantee the assets of others,” and that the erroneous citation of a regulation not in force was not used to define the offense nor as a basis for the ruling. Therefore, my conclusion is that the State of Argentina has not violated Article 9 of the American Convention. Alberto Pérez Pérez Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 4