55 higher court. This is evident from the fact that the motion for review of conviction is only admissible when the judgment has already become final and conclusive, and its purpose is to correct any possible judicial errors with regard to aspects, which may have not been addressed during the ordinary appeals stage. 222. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that, for the victims of the instant case, this legislative reform did not cure the violation of the right enshrined in Article 8.2.h of the Convention. 2.2. Law No. 8837 of 2010 223. The proven facts show that Law No. 8837 created a motion for appeal of judgment, to be heard by the new Courts of Appeal, as well as amending the content of the writ of cassation. The transitional provisions provide for two distinct circumstances. For individuals whose petition for writ of cassation was denied prior to the new law coming into force, it provides that they may file, a single time, a motion for review of judgment. For individuals whose petition for writ of reversal on cassation was pending disposition at the time the law came into force, it provides that they may seek to convert the petition for writ of cassation into a motion for appeal under the new law. 224. In the instant case, the vast majority of the victims fall under the first of the two circumstances; in other words, their only option under Law No. 8837 was a single-time filing of a motion for review of judgment. In this regard, the Commission reiterates its holdings of paragraphs 203 and 221 of the instant report. 225. As to Mr. Rojas Madrigal, his petition for a writ of reversal on cassation was pending decision at the time Law No. 8837 was enacted. Accordingly, his case falls under the second circumstance, that is, the opportunity to convert his petition for a writ of cassation into a motion for appeal. Based on the proven facts, Mr. Rojas Madrigal moved for this conversion but his motion was denied on the grounds that “it only references the violation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention (…) (and) did not explain the reasons that led him to believe that, despite his petition being filed prior to Law No. 8837 came into force, the procedure for appeal of conviction, provided for therein, should be applied to his case.” 226. In conclusion, even though the Commission views as a positive step the change in the law implemented by the State of Costa Rica, which resulted in the creation of a motion for appeal for persons convicted after said statute was enacted, with regard to the victims in the instant case, the reform did not cure the violation of the right set forth in Article 8.2.h of the American Convention. B. Right to a competent, independent and impartial judge (Article 8.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof) 227. Article 8.1 of the American Convention provides that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.