7 31. As to the other arguments of the petitioners, the State alleged that the criminal proceedings were conducted in keeping with due process protections and that it is not true that the conditions of detention denounced by them in the petition exist at the CAI La Reforma prison facilities. Lastly, the State contended that the deprivation of liberty of these individuals was not arbitrary. IV. PROVEN FACTS A. Relevant Legal Framework 1. Code of Criminal Procedure 1996 32. On December 10, 1996, the Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted under Law No. 7594, which came into force on January 1, 1998.13 Until Law No. 8503 was enacted on January 6, 2006, the Code of Criminal Procedure established that a petition for a writ of cassation (recurso de casación) could be filed to reverse a conviction in a criminal proceeding. 1.1 Writ of reversal on cassation (Recurso de casación) 33. Article 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established that the petition for a writ of reversal on cassation (recurso de casación) shall be admissible when the decision failed to observe or erroneously applied a legal precept. When the legal precept that is being claimed as unobserved or erroneously applied constitutes a procedural defect or flaw, the petition for cassation shall only be admissible if the interested party has filed a timely motion to rectify it or has sworn to petition for a writ of reversal on cassation, except in instances of absolute defects and those occurring subsequent to the closure of oral trial arguments.” 34. In this regard, Article 369 established that “the defects of a conviction, which are valid grounds for cassation” would be as follows: a) The defendant has not been properly identified; b) No basis provided for the determination on a fact found to be proven by the court; c) It is based on exhibits or evidence that have not been legally admitted at trial or have been admitted by an interpretation violating the rules established in the Code; d) There is no basis for the majority opinion of the court, the basis is inadequate or conflicting, or [the application of] the rules of free and reasoned judgment (the standard of sana crítica) is not apparent in the basis, with regard to exhibits or evidence of decisive value; e) The operative portion [of the judgment of conviction] is missing essential elements; f) The date of the act [of conviction] is missing and it is not possible to set [the date] or the signature of one of the judges is missing and it cannot be determined whether he or she has participated in the deliberation, notwithstanding the exceptions set forth in the law; g) Failure to observe the rules set forth for the deliberation and drafting of the judgment; h) Failure to observe the rules pertaining to the correlation between the conviction and the charges; i) Failure to observe or erroneous application of substantive law. 13 Annex 1. See: http://www.pgr.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_repartidor.asp?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=41297&nVa lor3=43524&strTipM=TC