allege that even assuming it were granted, it would have no effect, but rather, would translate into reprisals by the prison system. Petition 1256-06: Carlos Eduardo Yépez Cruz, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga and Miguel Antonio Valverde 52 46. It appears from the petition that the alleged victims were sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for the crime of international transport of drugs, by the Trial Court of the Southern Zone, Golfito Bench, in judgment 068-2004 dated June 14, 2004. The petitioners allege violation of Articles 2, 5, 8, 25 and 29 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. 47. The petitioners allege a number of violations of due process in the handling of the criminal case that resulted in the conviction. Specifically, they allege that they did not have an interpreter during the reading of the charges or during the preliminary hearing. They indicate that those irregularities were reviewed by the courts, but that their claims were denied. They also claim poor conditions in the prison, mistreatment, overcrowding, poor medical care and lack of protection in the prison 53. As to the requirement in the Convention that domestic remedies be exhausted, they claimed in their initial communications that they had exhausted domestic remedies, but they subsequently alleged that since the domestic legal system does not provide for an ordinary appeals procedure, there are no remedies to be exhausted. Nevertheless, they say that they filed an appeal against the conviction, along with about five requests for review in order to find a judicial remedy, without receiving outcomes favorable to them54. B. The State Common allegations 48. The State refutes the petitioners’ allegations, contends that it has not committed any violations against the alleged victims, and that the intention is to use the IACHR as a superior body, in light of their subjective disagreement with the various convictions handed down in the criminal cases brought against them. It states that the alleged victims have had full access to the various instances provided in the national legal system.With regard to the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, the State argues that both that Article and the holding in the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, do not state that the appeal [recurso de apelación] of a criminal verdict is the only means of appeal that will guarantee effective protection of the right to appeal a ruling to a superior judge or court55. 49. Nonetheless, it indicates that by virtue of the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica –of July 2, 2004-, legislative reforms were set in motion, at the same time as the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Appeals Courts, which are responsible for guaranteeing the right of appeal in criminal matters, took administrative measures and interpretations of jurisprudence in order to expand admissibility, eliminate formalities, assure 52 The petitioners claim that the violations to which the alleged victims are subjected have an impact on their family members. They also allege that Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay do not speak the official language of Costa Rica, and that by education and culture, they are from the island of San Andrés, where English is spoken. 53 They also allege that members of their families were prevented from entering the detention center. 54 The information available shows that the alleged victims appealed the conviction, which was denied on the merits on September 9, 2004. They subsequently filed requests for review.The requests were decided on June 10, 2005, and were declared inadmissible, on April 19, 2007, also found inadmissible, and July 5, 2007, found inadmissible in part, and in part dismissed. The alleged victims, Luis Archbold Jay, and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, lodged two requests for review, which were decided on October 20, 2006 and July 10, 2009, and were dismissed. Petitioner Carlos Eduardo Yépez Cruz filed a claim of unconstitutionality regarding a number of rules in the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that they were contrary to Article 8.2 (h) of the Convention. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court denied the action on the merits in a judgment dated November 30, 2005.. 55 With respect to Mr. Martínez Meléndez’s claim, the State claims that the petitioners do not specify or provide considerations of fact or of law as to why they consider that the appeals procedure was not an effective means of appealing for a comprehensive examination of the decision as required under Article 8 (2) (h) of the Convention. 11