0042-PE; 40 as well as Group 8, Damas Vega Atencio, in his two cases. 41 On the other hand, Group 2, Rafael Rojas Madrigal, in one of his three cases, No. 099-0029291-042-PE, filed a special motion for review pursuant to transitory provision I, which was then withdrawn. 42 Therefore, the Court declares admissible the objection with respect to Groups 2, 7 and 8, in relation to the aforementioned cases. 52. Third, the Court confirms that three groups of alleged victims filed a motion for review based on transitory provision I of Law 8503 prior to the issuance of the Admissibility Report: Group 2, Rafael Rojas Madrigal in one of his three case files, No. 99-000136-065-PE; 43 Group 6, Manuel Hernández Quesada (only has one case file) 44; and Group 7, Miguel Mora Calvo, in relation to one of his two cases, No. 97-000061-301-PE 45. Therefore, the objection in relation to Groups 2, 6 and 7, as far as the aforementioned case files are concerned, is declared inadmissible. 53. Fourth, regarding Group 3, the alleged victims Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz et al., in their only case No. 02-000759-455-PE-2, also filed motions for review during the proceedings before the Commission, but not based on transitory provision I of Law 8503; 46 however, on March 9, 2009, the alleged victims of Group 3 Enrique Archbold Jay and Luis Archbold Jay, filed a motion for review before the Court of Cassation of Cartago, in which they did invoke said transitory provision. 47 Therefore, with respect to Group 3, the Court declares admissible the objection with respect to the alleged victims Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz, Miguel Antonio Valverde Montoya, and Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga, but dismisses the objection with respect to Enrique Archbold Jay and Luis Archbold Jay. 54. Fifth, the Court notes that there are two groups of alleged victims who filed their cassation appeals within the framework of Law No. 8503 of 2006, “Law on the Opening of Criminal Cassation,” and therefore its transitory provisions were not applicable to them, as the State itself indicated; 48 Group 2, Rafael Rojas, in another of his three cases, No. 02-004656- 40 Cf. Motion for review filed by Miguel Mora Calvo on May 24, 2007 (evidence file, folios 6048 and ff.), and Decision N° 2009-01158 of September 16, 2009 (evidence file, folios 6071 and ss.). 41 Cf. Damas Vega Atencio filed several motions for review after the enactment of Law 8503 of 2006; however, he did not base the filing of this motion on transitory provision I of Law 8503. Within files Nos. 99000506-062-PE: i) Decision of August 29, 2012 regarding the motion for review filed on September 28, 2009 (evidence file, folio 20770); b) Decision of February 8, 2013 (evidence file, folio 20792). Within file No. 01002231-0063-PE: i) Motion for review of September 14, 2006 and decision 24 November 2006 (evidence file, folios 8468 and 35901); ii) Motion for review of May 22, 2007 and decision July 5, 2007 (evidence file, folios 7147 and 35906) and iii) Ruling of March 13, 2008 which decided the motion for review of January 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 35909). 42 Cf. Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal, in File No. 099-0029291-042-PE, filed a motion for review the 8 June 2007, which he subsequently withdrew. Cf. Motion for review filed on June 8, 2007 by Rafael Rojas (evidence file, folio 10739), letter of withdrawal of motion, dated April 17, 2007 (evidence file, folio 10726) and notification of June 21, 2007 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folio 10830). 43 Cf. Decision of the Third Chamber of May 28, 2010 (evidence file folios 33581 and 33587). 44 Cf. Decision of the Third Chamber of May 23, 2007 (evidence file, folios 2575, 2578, 2579 and 33434). See also chart provided by the State (merits file, folio 3396). 45 Cf. Decision of the Third Chamber 2009-225 of June 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 35489). 46 After the enactment of Law 8503, Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz, Miguel Antonio Valverde Montoya, Enrique Archbold Jay, Luis Archbold Jay and Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga filed the following motions for review within file No. 02-000759-445-PE-2, but did not base these on transitory provision I of Law 8503: i) Motion for review of December 5, 2006 and Decision of April 19, 2007 (evidence file, folios 4596 and 4753), ii) Motion for review of May 22, 2007 and Decision of June 5, 2007 (evidence file, folios 4758 and 4787), and iii) Motion for review filed on behalf of Enrique Archbold Jay and Luis Archbold Jay in the hearing of August 25, 2009 (CD) (evidence file, folio 1997). 47 Cf. Motion for review of March 9, 2009 and decision of 10 July 2009 (evidence file, folios 1952 and 1992). 48 Cf. Chart “Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the 8(2) h),” presented by the State during the public hearing on the possible merits, reparations and costs (merits file, folio 44767). 20