4 conviction or decisions on appeals filed;10 and vii) failure to call witnesses to appear on behalf of the defense.11 16. A group of alleged victims argued violation of the right to humane treatment, as enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention.12 They contended that during their stay at CAI La Reforma prison facilities they endured physical and psychological abuse as a consequence of a lack of medical care, overcrowding, lack of access to potable drinking water, poor sanitary conditions, lack of nourishment, and threats and assaults by police agents and other persons deprived of liberty. 17. Lastly, Rafael Rojas Madrigal and Jorge Martínez Meléndez alleged violation of the right to personal liberty claiming that their preventive detention was arbitrary because it exceeded the maximum length of prison sentence permitted under Costa Rican law. While, Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos González Lizano and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga, also alleged violation of their right to personal liberty claiming their conviction was unlawful because due process was not upheld. B. Position of the State 18. The State submitted preliminary arguments expressing its disagreement with the admissibility report approved by the IACHR. As for the allegations of a violation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention, it contended that the IACHR did not explain what it meant by saying that prima facie under Law No. 8503, the writ of reversal on cassation (recurso de casación) and the motion for the review of judgments of conviction (procedimiento de revisión) have a limited scope and do not provide for a comprehensive examination. It argued that this position places the State at a disadvantage in order to mount a defense because the IACHR had not explained the reasoning behind its decision. It further maintained that in ruling on the potential scope of Law No. 8837, which had not gone into force as of time the admissibility report was issued, the IACHR was prematurely issuing an opinion on it. 19. As to the allegations of the alleged victims on the violation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention, the State argued that under the Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica Case judgment of the Court, a change was made to the rules for contesting convictions. In this regard, the State argued that said judgment “does not establish that the remedy of appeal of criminal convictions is the only means of challenge to ensure effective protection of the right to appeal a judgment before a higher judge or court.” The State also contended that neither is it obligated to “hold two trials on the facts that are addressed by charges. What it [the Herrera Ulloa judgment] does establish is the requirement of (…) an effective remedy to make possible true, broad and comprehensive control over criminal convictions.” 20. For this reason, the State contended, in 2006, it approved Law No. 8503 “Law for the Opening of Criminal Cassation,” which i) eliminates the formal procedural requirements of the writ of reversal on cassation (signature requirement, mandatory legal citations, differentiation between procedural and substantive grounds); ii) allows for violations of due process or the right to a defense to 10 Rafael Rojas Madrigal, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Archbold Jay, Carlos Eduardo Yépez, Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga, Miguel Antonio Valverde and Jorge Martínez Meléndez. 11 12 Jorge Martínez Meléndez. Rafael Rojas Madrigal, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Archbold Jay, Carlos Eduardo Yépez, Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga, Miguel Antonio Valverde and Damas Vega Atencio.