enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention in accordance with the standards outlined in the report on the merits.” In its final oral and written observations, the Commission added that at present in Argentina, a person convicted in a second instance proceeding for the first time “in the so-called national system and in many of the provincial systems” would only have recourse to “the special federal appeal, a remedy that does not satisfy the requirements of the American Convention.” Therefore, it requested that, “in addition to the measures of reparation in favor of Mr. Mohamed [,] the Court order measures of non-repetition so that the State [...] adapts its domestic legislation which continues to prevent those convicted for the first time in a second instance proceeding from having the right to a comprehensive review, as granted by the American Convention.” Similarly, in its final observations, the Commission stated that “the legal precedents cited by the State in its answer brief are not relevant, since they refer to the amplitude of the cassation appeal and not to the special federal appeal, which remains the only means of challenging convictions issued at the second instance.” 159. The representatives requested that, as a measure of non-repetition related to the right to appeal the judgment protected in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, the Court order the State to introduce “a legal amendment that ensures a timely, effective, and accessible recourse against a conviction issued by any court” and argued that “this measure alone would not be [...] enough for [Mr. Mohamed], as he would not see the benefits of the measure since they would be reflected in future cases.” Furthermore, the representatives also requested that, “in order to avoid multiple criminal prosecutions, which may lead a person to be subjected to the risk of being tried and convicted more than once for the same act,” to order a “legal amendment that prevents appeals by the accusers against an acquittal rendered in a regular proceeding.” They further requested the “legal amendment of Article 280 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of Argentina [...] so as to prevent the groundless denial of special appeals in which constitutional matters are discussed or in which clauses of Declarations or Conventions on Human Rights are brought into play.” 160. The State argued that regarding the demand for the “adaptation of domestic law, it is appropriate to […] describe the development that has occurred in Argentina in relation to criminal procedure in the fourteen years it took to process this case before the Inter-American Commission.” Argentina referred to decisions of the Supreme Court, such as: the case of "Giroldi" (1995), in which it recognized that the guarantee of the “right of appeal” is a constitutional principle; the case of "Jauregui" (1998), wherein the Supreme Court “alluded explicitly to the possibility of applying the American Convention [...] to its domestic law and therefore guaranteeing the right to a second hearing” and the case of "Casal" (2005), in which the Attorney General's Office rendered an opinion stating that “[t]he Inter-American Court [...] in the case of Herrera Ulloa established the compulsory nature of the second hearing to ensure a comprehensive review of judgments,” and in which ruling the Supreme Court had determined the need to “pave the way for the interpretation required by the Constitution on the issue of judicial review.” Likewise, the State held that the ruling [in the case of ] “Casal” refers not only to the American Convention and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but also alludes to the decisions of international bodies such as the Human Rights Committee and the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the case of Herrera Ulloa, and that “in said ruling, the country’s highest court said that Art. 456 [of the national Code of Criminal Procedure] should be interpreted to mean that it allows for a comprehensive review of the judgment, as extensive as possible with the maximum effort of review by the cassation judges, according to the scope and records of each particular case.” According to Argentina, these decisions of the Supreme Court led to the establishment of the “doctrine of the right to a comprehensive review”, as contained in “[the] guarantee of the right to appeal, which includes the possibility of challenging both the law and […] also in relation to the evidence.” The State affirmed that “no legislative change is necessary to ensure compliance with Art. 8(2)(h) of the Convention in the local jurisdiction, since Article 456 [of the Code of Criminal Procedure], in the interpretation 43