appropriate remedy was not available to the interested party,” and therefore “the alleged violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention has not existed.” B.5) Alleged violation of the right protected under Article 8(4) of the Convention 78. The representatives argued that Mr. Mohamed’s right to not be judged twice for the same matter was violated because the acquittal of first instance was revoked. They stated that the “possibility of appealing to another higher court to review the criteria […] used by the court that heard the case […] has only been established as an individual right of the accused.” Likewise, referring to the doctrinal position of Julio Maier, they stated that the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal obtained in a legitimate trial “provoked a new criminal prosecution seeking conviction or a more severe sentence, which subjected the defendant to a new risk of conviction and, eventually, to a new trial.” Furthermore, they referred to certain case law of the Supreme Court of Justice67 in which “it held, continuously”, that the principle of non bis in idem “not only forbids the application of a second sentence for same cause but also exposure to the risk of that occurring” and that “the failure to validate the acquittal following the prosecution’s appeal implied a new procedural risk for the accused, which had already been successfully overcome […]”. The representatives noted that if this had been admitted by the Supreme Court of Justice, then “it must be respected by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (in accordance with the provisions of Article 29)” of the Convention. 79. The State argued that the representatives of the alleged victim were basing the alleged violation of the principle of ne bis in idem, “on cases in which the factual basis is very different to that of the present case”, where there were procedural defects that “have nothing to do with the case of the alleged victim.” Furthermore, Argentina argued that the principle of ne bis in idem requires the existence of a final acquittal. The State indicated that Mr. Mohamed “has been tried only once and did not have a final acquittal,” so that there was no double jeopardy. C) General Considerations of the Court 80. In similar cases, the Court has established that the determination of whether or not the State has violated its international obligations due to the actions taken by its 67 In their pleadings and motions brief the representatives specifically referred to the following rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice: 314:377; 319:43; 320:374; 321:1173, dissenting opinions of the judges Petracchi and Bosert; “Appeal for review argued by the defense of Yong Soo Kang in the case of Kang, Yong Soo s/ case No. 5742” [K. 75. XLII. APPEAL FOR REVIEW, Kang, Yong Soo s/ case N° 5742], ruling of May 15, 2007; Case of Polak, Federico G, ruling of October 15, 1998 (Rulings 321:2826); Case of Mattei (Rulings 272188); case of Sandoval, decided on August 31, 2010 by the Supreme Court of Justice, (“Appeal for review argued by the defense of David Andrés Sandoval in the case of Sandoval, David Andrés s/homicide aggravated by cruelty -3 victims-, Sandoval, Javier Orlando s/concealment, case No 21.923/02”); 329:1147 (considering paragraph 17 of the opinion of Judge Petracchi). In offering evidence in said brief (chapter “IX. Submission of Evidence”), in the chapter entitled “3. Documentary evidence”, the representatives did not submit a list of the domestic judgments offered as evidence, but in general indicated “[w]e add, as documentary evidence, in Annexes 2 to 8, an enormous number of Rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice”. In their final written arguments, in presenting their position regarding the “scope that should be given to the guarantee against double jeopardy, contained in Article 8[.]4” they stated, with respect to the Rulings of the Supreme Court, “we have included as evidence (among which we emphasize the Case of Sandoval, because of its importance and proximity in time, the Case of Kang […]). Here we refer to our brief of pleadings and evidence and to the corresponding attachment.” However, the Court notes that, from a review of 2204 pages of domestic judgments submitted as Annexes 2 to 8 of the pleadings and motions brief, it finds none of the judgments of the Supreme Court to which the representatives alluded when referring to the principle of ne bis in idem. The only ruling provided by the representatives was the one mentioned in the brief of observations to the Preliminary Objection: “CSJN, K. 121. XLIV. Kang, Yoong Soo s/ rec. Special proceedings: ‘Kang, Yoong Soo s/ special record.’ Buenos Aires, December 27, 2011”. 25