8 35. As to the procedure for filing a petition for writ of reversal on cassation, Article 445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established that it must be submitted to the court that issued the ruling “by means of a written motion expressing a basis in law, in which the legal provisions that are considered to not have been observed or to have been erroneously applied and the claim shall be clearly cited and expressed,” as well as “each ground for the legal basis shall be separately listed” inasmuch as “outside of this opportunity other grounds may not be pleaded.” Under Articles 446 and 447, it is stipulated that the case file shall be forwarded to the competent court of cassation, which shall determine the admissibility of the petition and whether or not a hearing must be convened. 36. With regard to the ability to introduce evidence, Article 447 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established that, in finding the petition admissible, the court has the authority to refrain from ordering evidence to be received. Additionally, under Article 449, it was established that “evidence may be introduced when the petition is based on a procedural defect and the way in which the act [of conviction] has been conducted is at issue, as opposed to what was stated in the proceedings, on the record of the oral proceedings, or in the judgment of conviction. If the court so deems it necessary, it may order it [the introduction of evidence] ex officio.” 37. Lastly, Article 450 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that, when the court of cassation grants the petition, it shall vacate either totally or partially the ruling under challenge and shall order the case to be retried or the ruling to be reissued. Additionally, it established that when the ruling is partially vacated, the concrete purpose of the retrial or new ruling shall be stated and, in the other instances, “it [the cassation court] shall amend the defect” and it shall resolve the matter in keeping with applicable law. 1.2 Motion for Review of Criminal Convictions (procedimiento de revisión) 38. Article 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established that the review is admissible against final judgment of conviction in the following instances: a) When the facts considered the basis of the conviction are inconsistent with those established by another final criminal judgment. b) When the conviction has been based on bogus evidence. c) When the judgment of conviction has been handed down as a result of abuse of authority or malfeasance in office, bribery, violence or any other criminal offense or fraudulent scheme, the existence of which has been adjudicated in a subsequent final conclusive judgment, except when one of the instances set forth in the subsection below is applicable. d) When it is proven that the conviction is illegal as a direct consequence of a serious breach of duties committed by a judge, even though it is impossible to prosecute due to an emerging circumstance. e) When after the conviction is handed down new facts or evidence suddenly emerge or are uncovered which alone or in combination with those already examined in the proceedings, prove that the crime did not take place, that the person convicted did not commit the crime or that the crime committed falls under a more favorable statute. f) When a subsequent law declares the act, which prior to that time was considered a punishable offense, is no longer so or when the law that served as the basis for the conviction has been found unconstitutional. g) When the conviction has not been rendered under due process of law or with an opportunity for a defense.