I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On April 13, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted case 11.618 against the Argentine Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “Argentina”) to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “brief submitting the case”), pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention. The initial petition was filed with the Inter-American Commission on March 18, 1996 by Mr. Carlos Alberto Mohamed (hereinafter “Mr. Mohamed”) and his former representative Attorney Roque J. Mantione (hereinafter “Mr. Mantione”). On February 22, 2005, the Inter-American Commission approved the Report on Admissibility No. 02/053. On November 2, 2010, the Commission approved the Report on the Merits 173/104, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention (hereinafter also “the Report on Merits” or “Report No. 173/10”)5. The Commission decided to submit “all the facts and human rights violations described in the [R]eport on the [M]erits 173/10” before the Court, given the alleged “necessity to obtain justice for the alleged victim, in view of the State’s lack of substantial progress regarding “compliance with the recommendations raised in [that] report.” The Commission appointed former Commissioner Luz Patricia Mejía, former Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton, as delegates, and Mrs. Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, María Claudia Pulido, Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Marisol Blanchard as legal advisors. 2. According to the Commission, this case concerns the alleged disregard for “a number of guarantees, including the principle of legality and non-retroactivity and the right to defense [as well as the lack of guarantee] of the right to appeal his conviction under the terms of the Convention [and of the right] to an effective recourse to provide redress for those violations.” The alleged violations were committed following the criminal conviction for manslaughter imposed on Mr. Mohamed for the first time in a second instance proceeding after an acquittal by a court of first instance, following a traffic accident in which he was involved and in which a person died. 3. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of Argentina for the alleged violation of “the principle of legality and non-retroactivity, the right to defense, the right to appeal the judgment and the right to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 9, 8(2)(c), 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Oscar Alberto Mohamed.” Consequently, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation. 3 In its Report, the Inter-American Commission declared admissible petition No. 11.618 in relation to the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8, 9 and 1(1) of the American Convention. It also held that “where applicable, it will also examine the possible application of Article 25 […] and of Article 2”. Cf. Admissibility Report No. 02/05, Case of 11.618, Oscar Alberto Mohamed v. Argentina, February 22, 2005 (case file processed before the Commission, Appendix 1, page 1006). 4 Merits Report No. 173/10, Case 11.618, Oscar Alberto Mohamed v. Argentina, November 2, 2010, approved during the 140th Regular Period of Sessions (Merits file, Volume I, pages 5 -31 and case file processed before the Commission, Appendix 1, pages 755 to 781). 5 The Report was notified to the State in a communication of December 13, 2010, and a two month deadline was set for the State to report on the measures it had adopted to comply with the recommendations formulated in the report. On February 11 and 17, 2011, the State requested an extension “to comply with the recommendations,” and a one-month extension was granted by the Commission on March 9, 2011. On April 1, 2011, Argentina filed the respective report in which it provided information on some of the recommendations made by the Commission. 5