and the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, and b) the prison conditions of some of the alleged victims. B.2.1. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies in connection with the criminal cases against the alleged victims 43. First, in relation to the State’s allegation that some of the alleged victims did not file an appeal in cassation, which would have allowed for a full review of the judgment, it is clear from the body of evidence that in the instant case all of the groups filed at least one appeal in cassation during the admissibility proceedings before the Commission. 30 44. It should be noted that the alleged victims Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7) and Damas Vega Atencio (Group 8) had two convictions and, therefore, two files each. In both cases, they only filed their respective cassation appeals with respect to one of their two convictions, which was decided for Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7) on May 28, 1999 and for Damas Vega (Group 8) on March 28, 2003. 31 In the case of Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7), he did not file an appeal in cassation in case No. 99-003994-0042-PE, in which he was convicted on December 5, 2000, for the crime of possession, transportation and storage of drugs. 32 For his part, Damas Vega Atencio (Group 8) did not file an appeal in cassation in case No. 01-0022310063-PE, in which he was convicted on April 4, 2002 for the crime of aggravated robbery. 33 45. The Court recalls that on July 2, 2004, it ruled in the case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, establishing that “the writs of cassation filed to challenge the November 12, 1999 conviction did not satisfy the requirement of a liberal remedy that would allow the higher court to conduct a thorough analysis or examination of all the issues debated and analyzed in the lower court.” 34 Therefore, it declared that the State violated Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, 35 and ordered Costa Rica to adapt its domestic legal system (supra para. 26). 46. The Court notes that, prior to the issuance of the Admissibility Report on July 22, 2011, the State enacted and gave effect on June 6, 2006, to Law 8503 “Law on the Opening of Criminal Cassation” and its transitory provision I, notifying the Commission of this fact. 36 Transitory provision I establishes the following: Persons convicted of a criminal act prior to the date of this Law, who have been prevented from petitioning for a writ of reversal on cassation against the judgment, due to the rules that regulated its admissibility at that time, i) Cf. Writs of cassation of Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos Manuel González Lizano and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga of September 22, 2003 (evidence file, folio 28912 and ff); ii) Cf. Writs of cassation of Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal of February 2, 2001, June 8, 2001 and July 31, 2003 (evidence file, folios 1010, 33556, 1032, 33561, 1263, 33599 and 33695); iii) Cf. Writs of cassation of Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz, Miguel Antonio Valverde Montoya, Enrique Archbold Jay, Luis Archbold Jay and Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga of September 9, 2004 (evidence file, folio 33736); iv) Cf. Writ of cassation of Jorge Alberto Martínez Meléndez of March 11, 2009 (evidence file, folios 33874 and 25948); v) Cf. Writs of cassation of Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández of May 30, 2005 (evidence file, folio 35365); vi) Cf. Writ of cassation of Manuel Adilio Hernández Quesada of November 28, 2003 (evidence file, folio 2541); vii) Cf. Writ of cassation of Miguel Ángel Mora Calvo of May 28, 1999 (evidence file, folio 35469); viii) Cf. Writ of cassation of Damas Vega Atencio of March 28, 2003 (evidence file folio 35757). 31 Cf. Decision on the writs of cassation filed by Miguel Ángel Mora Calvo and Damas Vega Atencio of 28 May 1999 and March 28, 2003 (evidence file, folios 35469 and 35757). 32 Cf. Judgment of December 5, 2000 (evidence file, folio 35622). 33 Cf. Judgment of April 4, 2000 (evidence file, folios 2965 and 35883). 34 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 167. 35 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 168. 36 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 105/11, paras. 79 and 82 (evidence file, folios 18258 to 18259), and responses of Costa Rica before the Commission, regarding the petitions filed by the alleged victims. (evidence file folios 4175, 4178, 43371, 43423, 43526, 43547 and 43747). 30 18