53 in light of the concrete case. This exclusion is, in and of itself, incompatible with the comprehensive scope of the remedy as provided for in Article 8.2.h of the American Convention. 209. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commission provides examples of the effects that some of these restrictions had on the way in which the petitions for writ of cassation were resolved in the cases under examination. 210. For example, in the case of Manfred Amrhein, Ronald Fernández, Carlos Osborne, Carlos González and Arturo Fallas, the Third Chamber rejected the allegations made in the petitions for writ of cassation, noting that they were not “consistent with the factual framework proven [by the trial court].” 211. In the case of Rafael Rojas Madrigal, in the context of the two proceedings culminating in a conviction prior to 2006, five petitions for writs of reversal on cassation were filed. The IACHR notes that the Third Chamber rejected several allegations relating to infringements of due process as well as the weighting of evidence on the grounds that no reference was made to the provisions of law that were allegedly violated and that “what is formulated [in this petition] is [his] disagreement with the final outcome of the trial.” 212. In the case of Carlos Eduardo Yepez Cruz, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, Fernando Saldarriaga and Miguel Antonio Valverde, the petition for writ of reversal on cassation filed by the alleged victims was denied by the Third Chamber, which noted that the determination of the facts and the documentary evidence cited was proven in the trial court judgment of conviction. 213. In the case of Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández, both filed petitions for writs of cassation, which were denied by the Third Chamber, which noted that as established by the trial court in its judgment, “it is unanimously certain with regard to some of the crimes of the charging document” and it further noted that “the crimes deemed proven (…) are supported in the evidence to sustain the guilt of the defendants.” 214. In the case of Manuel Hernández Quesada, the petition for writ of reversal on cassation filed by him was denied because in the view of the Third Chamber it was “overt, subjective disagreement with the decision [of the Trial Court].” In the case of Damas Vega Atencio, two petitions for writ of reversal of two convictions on cassation were filed. Both petitions were denied on the basis of the findings of fact previously established by the trial court. 215. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the writ of cassation under the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time did not fulfill the requirements of the right to appeal the judgment. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State violated Article 8.2.h of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Manfred Amrhein, Ronald Fernández, Carlos Osborne, Carlos González, Arturo Fallas, Rafael Rojas Madrigal, Carlos Eduardo Yepez Cruz, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, Fernando Saldarriaga, Miguel Antonio Valverde, Guillermo Rodríguez Silva, Martín Rojas Hernández, Manuel Hernández Quesada, Miguel Mora Calvo and Damas Vega Atencio. 2.2 Analysis of subsequent legislative developments regarding the right to appeal the judgment