51 opportunity to seek alternative representation, in order that their concerns may be ventilated at the appeal level.”333 198. The determination as to whether or not the right to appeal the judgment has been violated must be examined on a case-by-case basis whereby the specific circumstances of the situation brought before the Commission is assessed, in light of the general standards outlined in the preceding paragraphs regarding accessibility, effectiveness and timeliness of the remedy. 2. Analysis of Specific Cases 199. The Commission notes that all of the convictions against the alleged victims, except for two of them, were handed down when the Code of Criminal Procedure was in force, prior to enactment of the statutes creating the procedure for the writ of reversal of conviction on criminal cassation and of the motion for appeal of 2006 and 2010, respectively. 200. In this regard, the analysis as to whether or not the State is internationally responsible for the majority group of alleged victims who were convicted prior to 2006, will be confined to the legal framework in force at the time and under which they began to pursue an appeal in their criminal proceedings. Next, the Commission will examine the approval of Law No. 8503 and Law No. 8837 in 2006 and 2010, respectively, in order to determine whether these legal frameworks have had the impact on the situation claimed by the alleged victims. In the case of Jorge Martínez Meléndez and in one of he proceedings against Rafael Rojas Madrigal, the Commission will examine whether or not there was international responsibility of the State, using Law No. 8503 as a basis, as it was in force when their convictions were handed down. 2.1 Analysis as to whether the State of Costa Rica violated the alleged victims’ right to appeal the judgment when the Code of Criminal Procedure was in force prior to the legislative changes 201. As was noted in the preceding section, under Inter-American legal precedent, in order for an appeal to be in line with Article 8.2 of the American Convention, one of the major requirements it must fulfill is that it be admissible prior to the judgment of conviction becoming res judicata. 202. In the instant case, under the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time, the only remedy that was admissible to appeal a criminal conviction that had not become final and conclusive was the writ of reversal on cassation. As such, the Commission’s analysis will focus on said remedy, specifically on whether or not it fulfilled the standards described above.334 203. The IACHR will not address this issue with regard to the motion for review of conviction, which is regulated under the same Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as this remedy is extraordinary, i.e. judges have discretion to deny leave to appeal, and it is not meant to provide the right to review by a higher court, expressed by means of the complete review of conviction. This is apparent from the fact that the motion for review is only admissible when the conviction has become 333 UN, Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 “Article 14. Right to equality before the courts and tribunals and to a fair trial.” 2007, para. 51. 334 The Commission notes that all of the alleged victims in the instant case filed at least one petition for a writ on cassation, except for Miguel Mora Calvo. Accordingly, the Commission will not examine the situation of this individual.