3 10. The petitioners noted that, in 2006, Law No. 8503, titled the “Law for the Opening of Criminal Cassation” (Ley de Apertura de Casación Penal), was approved. They contended that this remedy continued to be restrictive, inasmuch as it did not allow for the challenge of facts adjudicated as proven in the judgment of conviction, or the evidence evaluated by the trial court. They also argued that the motion for review of conviction was still limited in scope and did not allow for a comprehensive and thorough examination of the conviction. 11. They noted that, in 2010, Law No. 8837, titled the “Law creating a conviction appeal procedure, other reforms to the appeals system and Implementing new rules on oral proceedings in criminal matters,” was approved. They further noted that, for all intents and purposes, Law No. 8837 supplanted all of Law No. 8503. 12. The petitioners contended that because their criminal convictions are final and conclusive (res judicata), they are allegedly precluded from filing a motion for appeal (recurso de apelación) or from resorting to the new intermediary appeals court (tribunal de apelación), both created under said statute (Law No. 8837). They claimed that under transitional Article III, their only recourse is to pursue the motion for review of conviction within a period of six months from the time the law came into force. They noted that with said remedy, under amendments to Articles 408 and 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, review of the facts or claims for procedural flaws violating due process rights may not be argued. They also noted that claims previously made in prior motions or appeals cannot be reasserted. 13. Additionally, they reported that as of 2009 judgments have been recorded on compact discs and, therefore, individuals serving sentences have no way of learning the decision, thus making it highly complicated to appeal through the remedies mentioned above, inasmuch as they are unaware of the content of the judgments of conviction. 14. The Commission notes that the petitioners made specific arguments about other violations of the Convention. The IACHR provides a summary of these arguments hereunder. 15. A group of alleged victims contended the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection as a result of the lack of i) independence and impartiality of judges;5 ii) formal charges;6 iii) adequate time and means for defense preparation;7 iv) assistance of a translator or interpreter;8 v) adequate legal assistance from a public defender;9 vi) notification of judgment of 5 Manfred Amrhein, Ronald Fernández, Carlos Osborne, Carlos González, Arturo Fallas Rafael Rojas Madrigal and Jorge Martínez Meléndez. 6 Rafael Rojas Madrigal, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Archbold Jay, Carlos Eduardo Yépez, Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga and Miguel Antonio Valverde. 7 Rafael Rojas Madrigal, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Archbold Jay, Carlos Eduardo Yépez, Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga, Miguel Antonio Valverde and Jorge Martínez Meléndez. 8 9 Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Archbold Jay. Rafael Rojas Madrigal, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Archbold Jay, Carlos Eduardo Yépez, Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga and Miguel Antonio Valverde.