binding on the Argentine judges. It affirmed that the absence of mandatory compliance with the decisions of the Supreme Court is the result of a system of broad control of constitutionality adopted by the Constitution; but, despite this, the failure to apply the legal doctrine established by the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of a constitutional clause, such as the review of a sentence, by the lower courts would immediately enable any person affected to appeal to the federal organ. Although the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation does not establish case law, because it is not a constitutional court, “any jurisdictional criterion that deviates from its legal doctrine authorizes a federal recourse and, in each specific case, may be cited by the party affected before the different instances, and the courts have the obligation to examine and decide the matter, which may ultimately, be referred to the Supreme Court by a special federal appeal.” The same situation occurs “when it is ruled that a norm is unconstitutional or when a specific interpretation of the norm is made.” In conclusion, the State considered that legislative reform is unnecessary with regard to review of the judgment. B.3.3.2. Considerations of the Court 330. In this Judgment, the Court has already established that the State did not guarantee Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza and Ricardo David Videla Fernández the right to appeal the judgment by filing the appeals in cassation regulated by article 474 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Mendoza and article 456 of the national Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively (supra paras. 240 and 261). The Court emphasizes that these facts occurred before the delivery of the Casal judgment (supra paras. 252 to 261). 331. The Court assesses positively the Casal judgment mentioned by the State with regard to the criteria it reveals on the scope of the review comprised by the appeal in cassation, in accordance with the standards derived from 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. The Court also underscores that the said judgment was cited by the courts when deciding the appeals for review filed by Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, and that control of compliance with the Convention was performed with regard to the scope of the right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court. Regarding the Casal judgment, the State explained how the system of constitutional control functions, based on which the criteria established in the said ruling regarding the right to appeal a judgment must be applied by Argentine judges at all levels. 332. The Court considers that judges in Argentina must continue exercising control of conformity with the Convention in order to ensure the right to appeal a judgment pursuant to Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and this Court’s case law. Nonetheless, the Court refers to the its considerations on the obligations derived from Articles 2 and 8(2)(h) of the American Convention (supra paras. 293 to 298 and 301 to 303), and considers that within a reasonable time, the State must adapt its domestic laws to the parameters set forth in this Judgment. B.3.4. Training for State authorities B.3.4.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 333. The Commission asked the Court “to order measures of non-repetition including training programs for prison staff on international human rights standards and, in particular, on the right of persons deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity, as well as on the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” 105