Supreme Court “ha[d] denied its jurisdiction and [Mr. Mohamed] ha[d] not been hear [d] with the proper guarantees,” which constituted violation of Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights. He also argued that “by having applied a regulation retroactively,” the revocation of the acquittal had also violated Article 9 of the Convention. He further stated that in filing the motion to revoke the decision he sought to comply with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies in order to have access to the inter-American System of Human Rights.58 61. On October 19, 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the motion filed by Mr. Mohamed’s defense lawyer, indicating that “the Court’s decisions are not subject to replacement or revocation.”59 C) Consequence of criminal disqualification from driving 62. On July 17, 1995, after the special federal appeal was rejected (supra para. 54), Mr. Mohamed was fired from his job as a bus driver. According to the telegram sent to notify him of his dismissal, he was dismissed because of “his criminal disqualification from driving.” The same telegram also stated, “work contract terminated [,] your fault.”60 Mr. Mohamed received a monthly salary of 500 pesos and 75/100.61 VII RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, IN RELATION TO THE DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS AND OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS A) Introduction 63. In this case, both the Commission and the representatives have alleged that in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Mohamed, which established his responsibility for committing the crime of manslaughter, his right to appeal the judgment was violated, a judicial guarantee protected under Article 8(2) (h)62 of the American Convention, as well 58 Cf. Brief filed on September 27, 1995 by the defense attorney of Oscar Alberto Mohamed against the decision issued on September 19, 1995 by the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, pages 15 and 16). 59 Cf. Ruling issued on October 19, 1995 by the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State on July 23 and 30 and August 10, 2012, page 18). In this regard, on October 31, 1995 Mr. Mohamed’s defense attorney “formulated] statements” in connection with the payment of a deposit for the filing of a motion for review in accordance with the provisions of Article 286 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law 2372 of 1888, and reiterated his request to the Supreme Court that "[he] be exempted” from said payment. Statement - Deposit Article 286 CPCC filed by Roque J. Mantione, defense attorney of Oscar Alberto Mohamed received by the Supreme Court of Justice on October 31, 1995 (evidence file to facilitate adjudication presented by the State el July 23, 2012, pages 19 to 21). 60 Cf. Telegram dated June 17, 1995 notifying Oscar Alberto Mohamed of his dismissal from “Transporte 22 de Setiembre” (File of attachments to the Report on Merits 173/10, Annex 12, page 53). 61 Cf. Receipt for payment No. 4/0041 of April 1995 by “Transporte 22 de septiembre” to Oscar Alberto Mohamed (File of attachments to the Report on Merits 173/10, Annex 2, page 7). 62 Article 8 (Judicial Guarantees) of the Convention states: 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: […] h) the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court 20