b) Admissibility of the petition. On July 22, 2011, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report 105/11, in which it declared the admissibility of the eight petitions, decided to join them and processed them under case No. 12,820. c) Merits Report. On April 4, 2014 the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 33/14 (hereinafter “Merits Report” or “Report No. 33/14”), pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention. In its report, the Commission reached a number of conclusions and made various recommendations to the State: i.Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: 1. The violation of the right to appeal the judgment as established in Article 8(2)( h) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Manfred Amrhein, Ronald Fernández, Carlos Osborne, Carlos González, Arturo Fallas, Rafael Rojas Madrigal, Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, Fernando Saldarriaga [Saldarriaga], Miguel Antonio Valverde, Guillermo Rodríguez Silva, Martín Rojas Hernández, Manuel Hernández Quesada, Damas Vega Atencio, Miguel Mora Calvo and Jorge Martínez Meléndez. 2. The violation of the right to an impartial judge established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Rafael Rojas Madrigal. 3. The violation of the right to personal liberty as established in Articles 7(1), 7(2) and 7(5) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Martínez Meléndez. 4. The violation of the right to humane treatment (personal integrity) as established in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Rafael Rojas Madrigal, with respect to the failure to provide access to health services, as well as to the detriment of all the victims of the instant case who have served their sentence at CAI La Reforma prison, because of the conditions of detention in said facility. ii.Recommendations. The Commission made the following recommendations to the State: 1. To order full reparation for the violations declared in the instant Merits Report, including adequate compensation. 2. To order the necessary measures to be taken so that, as soon as possible, the victims are able to pursue a remedy whereby they obtain a review of their convictions in keeping with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, under the standards established in the instant report. 3. To order the necessary measures to ensure that the conditions of detention at CAI La Reforma prison comply with Inter-American standards on the subject matter. Particularly, ensure that adequate medical care is made available to persons deprived of liberty at said prison facility, including the victims of the instant case. d) Notification to the State. On April 28, 2014, the Merits Report was notified to the State, which was granted an initial period of two months to report on compliance with the recommendations. Despite the two extensions granted to the State, it did not formally express its willingness to comply with the recommendations. e) Submission to the Court. On November 28, 2014, the Commission submitted the case to the Court “given the need to obtain justice” in light of “all facts and human rights violations described in the Merits Report.” 3 It asked the Court to declare the international responsibility of the State for the violations indicated in Report No. 33/14, and to order Costa Rica to comply with the recommendations contained in said report as measures of reparation. Manuel Adilio Hernández Quesada (evidence file, folio 5947); 7) Petition P 221-05, submitted on March 3, 2005 by Miguel Mora Calvo. Cf. Petition regarding Miguel Mora Calvo (evidence file, folio 6589), and 8) Petition P 117404, submitted on November 3, 2004, by Damas Vega Atencio. Cf. Petition regarding Damas Vega Atencio (evidence file, folio 6957). 3 The Commission appointed Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez and the then Executive Secretary, Emilio Álvarez Icaza L. as its delegates before the Court and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Assistant Executive Secretary, Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Erick Acuña Pereda, lawyers of the Executive Secretariat of the Commission, as its legal advisers. 7