28 petition for review, in the case of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa; and c) petition seeking habeas corpus relief in the case of Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser; and 2) alleged “belated introduction” (and even material nonexistence) of the court order alleged to have caused Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser harm. * * * FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Failure to exhaust domestic remedies The State’s allegations 76. The State pointed out that under articles 10 and 48 of the Constitution of Costa Rica, there are four judicial mechanisms that ensure the exercise of human rights to all persons subject to its jurisdiction: 1) a legal action filed to challenge constitutionality; 2) judicial consultation on constitutionality; 3) the remedy of habeas corpus, and 4) the remedy of amparo. These remedies were not exhausted. It alleged that: a) Law No. 7135, the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act of October 11, 1989, states that the purpose of a legal action challenging constitutionality is to combat laws and other general provisions that violate, either by action or omission, some constitutional precept or principle; b) under the Costa Rican system, any private party may file an action challenging constitutionality either through a “judicial motion or through legal action.” The “motion” applies when a court decision is pending, even in the case of petitions of habeas corpus or amparo, or in the proceeding to exhaust the administrative avenue. Challenging a provision or act as unconstitutional is a reasonable means to protect a subjective right or a legitimate interest believed to have been wronged. The “legal action” avenue is broader in the sense that anyone has active legal standing to bring the action, regardless of whether that person is claiming direct or indirect injury. No court decision need be pending and the action can be brought to defend diffuse interests or the interests of the group as a whole; c) the efficacy of an action challenging constitutionality stems from the effects that follow from a finding of unconstitutionality when an action is filed alleging that a provision does not apply because it is contrary to the Constitution or a violation of some fundamental right contained in international human rights instruments. Those effects, which are retroactive for the accused or convicted, are: nullification of the provision or act being challenged; res judicata; elimination of the provision or act from the juridical system; grounds for suspension of the statute of limitations, and grounds for prejudiciality; d) an action challenging constitutionality is an effective and adequate domestic remedy that would have enabled Costa Rica’s Constitutional Court to examine the criminal law that criminals and punishes offenses against honor