anyone who has been convicted has a right under Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, the Court notes that the expert opinions in the case file on the scope of these grounds reach contradictory conclusions.311 It can be observed that these grounds make it possible to contest the verdict when the judgment does not observe the requirements that article 342 of the code imposes on the judge. These include the obligation to include a “clear, cogent and complete description of each of the facts and circumstances that the Court found proved, whether favorable or unfavorable to the accused, and [that] of the assessment of the evidence that would substantiate these conclusions in accordance with article 297” (supra para. 272). Meanwhile, article 297 of the Criminal Procedural Code establishes as criteria for assessing the evidence, “the principles of logic, the lessons of experience, and scientifically established knowledge”; stipulates the obligation to “refer in its reasoning to all the evidence produced, even the evidence that it may have rejected, in that case indicating why it was rejected,” and imposes the need to “indicate the evidence used to substantiate each of the facts and circumstances that were found proved” and that “[t]his substantiation shall allow the reasoning used to reach the conclusions arrived at in the judgment to be reproduced” (supra para. 272). 295. The Court notes that the text of Article 374.e) of the Criminal Procedural Code establishes grounds for absolute nullity based on the obligations to assess the evidence and to justify this assessment established in the same procedural code. In addition, this Court is aware that, under article 381 of the Criminal Procedural Code, it is necessary to forward to the higher court that decides the appeal not only the judgment that is appealed and the brief filing the appeal, but also the measures that are contested or the recording of the hearing of the oral trial (supra para. 272) which, according to expert witness Fuentes Maureira, corresponds to the audio recordings of the public hearing. Thus, under article 374.e of this code the appellant is allowed to file arguments that not only refer to the rigor of the reasoning of the guilty verdict and its determination based on the evidence, but also allow him to offer as a parameter to support these arguments the actions and evidence during the oral trial that, according to the appellant, were unduly assessed and the conclusions unduly substantiated in the guilty verdict. 296. With regard to the position held by the parties in relation to the interpretation that the domestic courts have accorded to the grounds for absolute nullity of article 374.e) of the Criminal Procedural Code, the extracts from judgments cited by the State312 show that, in those 311 On the one hand, expert witness Fuentes Maureira, proposed by the State, affirmed that, under the said grounds, “if a judge […] should cite a criterion for assessment [of the evidence] contrary to sound judicial discretion [… or] if he should derive irrational conclusions from the evidence presented,” that are contrary to “the lessons of experience, and scientifically established knowledge according to the rules of logic,” and this “leads to an improbable or impossible conclusion,” it is possible to obtain “the annulment of the trial.” He explained that, “in Chile, more and more case law exists in which, increasingly, the oral trial courts are being required to write all that the witnesses have said in the context of the trial in greater detail; in other words, one can find in the judgments, not only the decision based on an assessment of the evidence, but also a complete and detailed description of everything that the witnesses have said, together with the possibility of attaching the relevant part of the audio recording of the hearing. From this perspective […] the higher court, by reading the judgment and listening to the recordings, is able to review certain evidentiary aspects of the trial hearing.” To the contrary, expert witness Fierro Morales, proposed by the FIDH, stated that “the very conception of the appeal for annulment […] as a remedy of a “special” and strictly legal nature, with grounds that are specifically set forth in the law, with a series of requirements for filing it that the case law of the higher courts of justice has used in an overly formal way to declare the appeals inadmissible and, especially, the idea that it is not possible, either directly or indirectly, to review any aspect relating to the facts, since this is the exclusive attribution of the trial court, are some of the objections that are being increasingly raised against the appeal for annulment as an appropriate and sufficient remedy to guarantee the right to appeal of the person who has been convicted.” Cf. Statement made by expert witness Carlos Fuentes Maureira before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 29 and 30, 2013, and affidavit prepared on May 17, 2013, by expert witness Claudio Alejandro Fierro Morales (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folio 20). 312 Both the State and the representatives cited extracts from domestic judgments deciding appeals for annulment in support of their respective positions. The appeals related to the scope of the said grounds in relation to the possibility of examining matters of a factual nature in the context of trials on criminal acts. The Court will take this information on domestic decisions into account, inasmuch as the parties did not contest the veracity of its content, but recalls that the 102