regarding the submission of two pleadings and motions briefs by the common interveners SIPDH, it recalled that this matter was already settled by the Court on September 17, 2015. 64. The common interveners Factum Consorcio reiterated that in the case of Jorge Martínez Meléndez it was clear that the legislation in force restricted the possibility of examining the arguments of fact and law in cassation. They considered that the decision of the Third Chamber was clear in indicating that it would not proceed to review the facts considered proven in the judgments, and the decision that did not allow the conversion of one of the appeals in cassation into an appeal was evident. Therefore, in this particular case, the appeal for review in the period under study was far from being an expeditious, adequate and effective remedy, as required under Article 8(2)(h). Furthermore, they affirmed that the State did not observe the limits of procedural fairness, since contrary to what it indicated in judgment No. 2008-232, the Third Chamber was clear in denying the possibility of challenging the veracity of the facts considered proven in the conviction. 65. The Inter-American Defenders alleged that the State did not indicate clearly and with evidentiary grounds which serious defects had prevented the conduct of its defense, or that any act was openly biased. They explained that in the proceeding before the Commission, the State raised objections and responded to each of the arguments in the petitions. Likewise, the Commission was diligent and respectful of due process, since it allowed all the parties to develop their evidentiary activities, provided adequate time to prepare their defenses, and took into account the arguments of the State; therefore, there was no “inequality of arms” in favor of the alleged victims. Regarding the joinder of the cases, they argued that the State had every opportunity to conduct its defense throughout the proceedings before the Commission, and that in the cases there is consistency in the rights alleged to have been infringed, that is, the overcrowded conditions in the prison, chronic and serious problems in the Costa Rican appeals system and regarding other alleged rights. 66. The common interveners SIPDH argued that the objection should be dismissed. As for the alleged erroneous joinder of cases, they argued that this was not challenged by the State in a timely manner. Likewise, they argued that the Commission joined the cases based on its own Rules of Procedure, and that in the matter of the joinder of petitions, the Commission’s actions have validity and legality iuris tantum. In this case, the State has merely presented a number of disagreements without demonstrating to what extent its right of defense and the procedural equality of the parties have been impaired by the Commission’s decision. In turn, SIPDH pointed out that the alleged victims understand that the joinder of cases “serves as an instrument for a more comprehensive analysis of their specific situations and that it can be a tool to resolve a structural problem that transcends their specific cases.” Since all the joined cases refer to the alleged lack of a comprehensive ordinary remedy in criminal cases, it is appropriate and logical that, for procedural economy and structural logic, several similar cases should be resolved together in terms of this general and systematic questioning. 67. Finally, regarding the documents that the Commission had allegedly omitted to present to the Court, the State indicated that although it does not know which documents were not submitted, if this was the case, it would not represent such a serious fault as to reject the admissibility of the case or irreparably affect the State’s defense. C.2 Considerations of the Court 26