B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 77. Article 46 (1) (a) of the American Convention provides that admissibility of a petition presented to the Inter-American Commission under Article 44 of the Convention requires that domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement is intended to allow the national authorities to examine the alleged violation of a protected right and, where appropriate, to have the opportunity to resolve it before it is heard in an international venue. 78. The main subject of the claims set out in the various petitions refers to 1) alleged violation of Article 8 (2) (h) of the American Convention, because the alleged victims were convicted without having available to them in domestic law a remedy that would allow for a comprehensive examination of the respective judgments; 2) Alleged deficiencies in the public defender’s office; hindrances to the defense; alleged lack of the guarantee of impartiality of the judges; alleged failure to formally present the charges, and of adequate legal representation. 1) Alleged violation of Article 8 (2) (h) of the American Convention 79. In the instant case, the petitioners claim their right to a comprehensive examination of the convictions handed down by the courts of law of Costa Rica. For its part, the State contends that with the adoption of Law 8.503, the legal system gave effect to the Convention, and the subsequent adoption of Law 8.837 “Creation of an Appeals Procedure, other Reforms to the appeals system, and implementation of new rules for oral proceedings in criminal trials”, reinforced the protection of the fundamental rights and guarantees of due process, to guarantee legal certainty. 80. For the purposes of examining admissibility, the Commission notes that prior to the entry into force of Law 8.503 in June 2006, the Inter-American Court found that the appeal procedure (recurso de casación) provided for challenging a conviction did not satisfy “the requirement that it be a liberal remedy that would permit the higher court to do a thorough analysis or examination of all the issues debated and analyzed in the lower court” 75.The Commission thus observes that the legislation prior to the legal reform of June 2006 did not provide an appropriate procedure compatible with the American Convention. 81. Also, the IACHR notes that subsequent to the coming into force of Law 8.503, the remedies available to the alleged victims –appeal [casación] and revision- were limited in scope and did not offer a comprehensive examination because of the rules that governed them. For other part, the Commission observes that the remedy of appeal [recurso de apelación] as created by Law 8.837 does not apply to the alleged victims in the present case, because when the referred Law enters in force, the alleged victims will be entitled, for one time only, to present a request for a revision. 82. Therefore, for the purposes of admissibility, the Commission will analyze in the merits if the domestic legislation offered the alleged victims an appropriate remedy for the protection of the right to a comprehensive examination of their convictions. Article 46 (2) (a) of the American Convention provides that one of the exceptions to the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is that the domestic legislation of the State does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right allegedly violated. As a result, the Commission finds that this exception applies in the case regarding the alleged violation of Article 8 (2) (h) of the American Convention. 2) Alleged deficiencies in the office of the public defender; hindrances to the defense; alleged failure to guarantee the impartiality of the judges; alleged failure to formally present the charges and legal counsel; allegedly excessive preventive detention 75 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa Vs. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 167. 18