69 136. The Court will not take up the allegation made by the Commission and by the alleged victims’ representatives to the effect that Article 2 of the Convention was violated, because the facts in this case do not fit the propositions upon which that article is based. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 25 IN COMBINATION WITH ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) Pleadings of the alleged victims’ representatives 137. In their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, the alleged victims’ representatives argued that the State violated Article 8 of the Convention; in their final oral arguments and final written pleadings, they argued that the State had also violated Article 25 of the Convention. Their pleadings were as follows: 137(1) With regard to the admissibility of the petition alleging violations of Article 8 of the Convention: a) the Commission did not address these claims in either its Report No. 84/02 or in the application. The representatives contend that they are not attempting to bring new facts to the Court’s attention; instead, their purpose is to get a court to examine facts that are a matter of record, have been proven, were never disputed when the case was before the Commission, and were narrated in the application. They are also seeking application of the maxim of the law known as iura novit curia; b) when the lower court found against Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, his only procedural recourse to challenge the conviction was a writ of cassation. Given the limitations of the writ of cassation, it does not meet the standard required under Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention as it does not allow appeal to a higher court; c) in the instant case, the writ of cassation was inadequate and illusory, which violated Mr. Herrera Ulloa’s right to a competent, independent and impartial judge or tribunal (Article 8(1) of the Convention). 137(2) With regard to the right to appeal a judgment to a higher court (Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention) and of the right to judicial protection (Article 25 of the Convention), the representatives argued that: a) the writ of cassation is not a full remedy; it is an extraordinary remedy. It does not authorize a full review of the facts and the law in the case. Instead, it is used to resolve a variety of complicated procedural formalities, and hence is not an appeal in the sense of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. The writ of cassation will not reopen the case for additional evidence to be taken, nor re-assess the evidence already produced. Nor does it offer any other means of defense other than those listed in Article 369 of Costa Rica’s Code of Criminal Procedure;