conclusion]”; in other words, whether any of the rules of procedure were violated. 325 Consequently, the Court observes that, given the way in which the remedy is regulated, the literal wording of the laws that regulate the appeal in cassation make it impossible for a higher court to review matters of fact and/or evidence (supra paras. 250 and 251) In this regard, the State argued that, since 2005, full review of the judgment is possible, because the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation decided this in the Casal judgment. 326 254. In this regard, this Court observes that the pertinent part of the “Casal judgment” establishes that the remedy of cassation was historically limited to legal issues, because it was created to that a higher court could exercise control of the work of lower court judges, to prevent their judgments being contrary to the text of the law. Under this classic schema, the decisions made by the judges on the facts could not be changed. Therefore, during the appeal in cassation, historically, a complete separation was made between factual issues and legal issues in order to decide whether or not a judgment could be appealed. The appeal in cassation was limited to legal issues. 327 However, the highest court of Argentina indicated that the delimitation between these areas “although it appears to be clear in principle, when confronted with real cases is almost inoperable [… because], moreover, a factual issue may become a legal issue and vice versa.” 328 In this way, the Supreme Court of the Nation indicated that “the limitation of the appeal in cassation to the so-called issues of law is discarded definitively.” 329 In other words, if the wrong committed against the convicted individual is considered a matter of fact and evidence, this cannot be used as an excuse to deny, ipso facto, the examination of the possible errors in the judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court stated that “Articles 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and 14(5) of the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] require the review of everything that is not exclusively reserved to those who were present as judges during the oral proceedings” 330 and, therefore, any error that the judgment could contain shall be a matter that can be appealed, with the exception of what was perceived, only and directly, by the judges during the said stage. 331 255. It is pertinent to stress that the criteria evident from the Casal judgment were subsequent to the decisions taken on the appeals in cassation filed on behalf of the presumed victims in this case. Therefore, the analysis of the relevance of this judgment, in the terms indicated by the State, will be made in the pertinent chapters of this Judgment (infra paras. 299 to 303). 325 1296). Cf. Expert opinion of Alberto Bovino provided by affidavit on August 24, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folio 326 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of September 20, 2005, in the case of “Casal, Matías Eugenio et al. ref/ attempted common theft,” paras. 24 to 26 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folios 4285 to 4289). 327 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of September 20, 2005, in the case of “Casal, Matías Eugenio et al. ref/ attempted common theft,” paras. 9 and 10 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folios 4275 to 4276). 328 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of September 20, 2005, in the case of “Casal, Matías Eugenio et al. ref/ attempted common theft,” para. 26 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folios 4287 to 4288). 329 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of September 20, 2005, in the case of “Casal, Matías Eugenio et al. ref/ attempted common theft,” para. 25 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4287). 330 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of September 20, 2005, in the case of “Casal, Matías Eugenio et al. ref/ attempted common theft,” para. 24 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4286). 331 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of September 20, 2005, in the case of “Casal, Matías Eugenio et al. ref/ attempted common theft,” paras. 24 and 25 (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folios 4285 to 4287). 83