the right to review by a higher court” was protected. Furthermore, the State argued that "[i]n all its answers to the Inter-American Commission [...] it always referred to the fact that the petitioner did not raise the federal question” regarding “the violation of his right to have his conviction reviewed pursuant to the terms of Art. 8(2) (h) of the Convention.” The State affirmed that, based on such reasons and the subsidiary nature of international law, “the Court cannot address grievances that have not been heard in the domestic courts.” Moreover, the State argued that comparative international law provides exceptions to the right to appeal criminal convictions, for which it referred to paragraph 2 of Article 2 of Protocol 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. B.2) Alleged violation of the obligation to provide adequate time and means to prepare a defense (Article 8(2) (c) of the Convention) 70. The Commission held that the State had violated the right to a defense, because the decision of the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals to declare inadmissible the special appeal “change[d] the grounds for the conviction” without granting Mr. Mohamed the procedural opportunity to be heard regarding this “new basis for the charges.” It added that Mr. Mohamed was not heard during the processing of the appeal, nor afterwards, given that both the motions of review and of revocation filed subsequently were rejected in limine by the Supreme Court of Justice. The Commission referred to the case law of the Inter-American Court and the European Court of Human Rights in arguing the need to ensure the right to defense when modifying the legal definition of the facts during a proceeding. 71. The representatives indicated that the attempt to correct the “material error” by the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals was a “new and surprising argument” which, since it did not form part of the appealed conviction, could not be taken into account by Mr. Mohamed’s defense as a basis for the appeal, and it had “no opportunity to rebut” the new grounds, constituting a violation of the right to defense under the terms of Article 8(2)(c). 72. The State indicated that “it is not true that the decision which denied the special appeal filed by [Mr.] Mohamed’s defense, had changed the grounds for the criminal charge, upon arguing that the sentence was based mainly on the violation of the 'objective duty of care' under Article 84 of the Argentine Criminal Code.” It noted that in the judgment of February 22, 1995, the Appeals Court convicted Mr. Mohamed “finding him criminally responsible for the crime of manslaughter under Article 84 of the Criminal Code,” and that in the ruling it had expressly stated that such norm provided “the legal grounds for the conviction.” The State asserted that in the decision which denied the special appeal, the Chamber confirmed this analysis. Argentina considered the allegations relating to the “alleged inability of the accused to prepare his defense for lack of time or appropriate means” to be “clearly unfounded.” B.3) Alleged violation of the duty to substantiate any accusation and of the right to be heard (Article 8(1) of the Convention) 73. The representatives argued that the State had an obligation to respect and guarantee the right to be heard, but that Argentina did not consider or respond to Mr. Mohamed’s claim in the special appeal in which he challenged the conviction. The representatives indicated that, when ruling on the admissibility of the special appeal, the very same judges who convicted Mr. Mohamed at the second instance rejected the recourse considering that it was not a comprehensive remedy and “disregard [ing] the 23