17 was a “material error,” because the element that generated criminal liability was the objective duty of care. It added that “as noted above [this] is not a subject for discussion by this means.” The Commission notes that the judgment did not deal with the substance of the case, as established in the text of the judgment, and nevertheless indicated a new motivation, without explaining what the imputable behavior was. 56. The resolution merely states that said objective duty of care was duly accredited without specifying how, or the normative elements of the objective duty of care. So although its resolution rejecting the special appeal should have been an analysis on admissibility of the appeal, the Court, without considering the appeal, interpreted the conviction, changing its justification, without indicating the legal precepts on which it was based. This fails to comply with the requirement for defining offenses, under which the State’s criminal code must classify and describe crimes in precise and unambiguous language that narrowly defines the punishable offense, establishing its elements and the factors that distinguish it from behaviors that are either not punishable offenses or are punishable by other penalties,39 as required by Article 9 of the American Convention. 57. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the violation of Article 9 was not corrected by the special appeal. 58. Based on arguments of fact and law, the Commission concludes that the secondinstance judgment of the Chamber of Appeals, which convicted Oscar Alberto Mohamed, by completing the criminal definition of negligent homicide with norms of a regulation that was not in force at the time of the facts, violated Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s right to no retroactive application of criminal law, set forth in Article 9 of the American Convention. This was not corrected by the verdict of the Chamber of Appeals, which declared the special appeal inadmissible, because it only changed the source of the criminal charge without establishing the elements of the objective duty of care on which it based its decision. B. Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s right to defense (Article 8.2.c in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention). 59. As indicated in the preceding chapter, the verdict that declared the special appeal inadmissible changed the justification for the conviction, indicating a new basis for the charge against Oscar Alberto Mohamed. It said that the application of a decree that was not in force was a material error and interprets that he was convicted of violation of the objective duty of care. The Commission notes that Mr. Mohamed had no due process opportunity to be heard regarding his allegations with respect to the new justification, either during the processing of the appeal or subsequently, because all the appeals filed were rejected in limine. 60. Article 8.2.c of the American Convention establishes: 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: c. adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense. 039 I/A Court H. R., Case of De La Cruz Flores v. Peru, Judgment of November 18, 2004 (merits, reparations, and costs) Series C. No. 115, para. 79: “Concerning the principle of legality in the penal sphere, the Court has indicated that the elaboration of criminal categories involves a clear definition of the criminalized conduct, establishing its elements, and the factors that distinguish it from behaviors that are either not punishable or punishable but not with imprisonment.” See also: I/A Court H. R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para.174; I I/A Court H. R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para.121; I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 157.