15. The petitioners allege violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, claiming that Costa Rica’s legal system does not have an ordinary proceeding that would allow for a comprehensive examination of all criminal convictions. It is alleged that the State adopted Law 8.50313 on “Law for the Opening of the Criminal Appeal [Casación]” in 2006, (hereinafter, “Law 8.503”) and, in 2010, Law 8.837 14 on “Creation of an Appeals Procedure, other Reforms to the appeals system, and implementation of new rules on oral proceedings in criminal cases”, (hereinafter, “Law 8.837”), in order to give effect to the American Convention in the domestic legal system; however, they allege that the reforms do not satisfy the judicial guarantees required by the Convention. They so claim because Law 8.837 –which will come into force in December 2011- does not afford the alleged victims the right to file an appeal; the only right they would have is to enter a request for a review procedure, which, according to the petitioners, would be on more limited grounds than those provided for in the previous legislation. Petitioners Rojas Madrigal and Hernández Quesada allege that this latter point also constitutes a violation of the right to equal protection of the law set forth in Article 24 of the American Convention. Specific allegations 16. Some petitions also make specific allegations about presumed violations of the guarantee of impartiality of judges; alleged deficiencies in the office of the public defender; alleged failure to formally present the charges and failure of legal counsel and/or alleged inadequate conditions of detention; allegedly excessive preventive imprisonment, among others. 17. They also claim, in general terms, that the guarantee of impartiality in Article 8.1 of the Convention was violated-- for example, the same judges that rule in appeals cases also do so in review proceedings15.They allege that the public prosecutor is both judge and an interested party in the preparatory stage of the investigation. 18. They also allege that there are obstacles to finding the assistance of a public defender, which would mean lack of proper defense16, because, for example, in order to use a public defender to file a request for review, that request must first have been declared admissible. 19. It is further alleged that the alleged victims’ right to a defense would be violated, because the formal notification of the charges was not done in accordance with due process guarantees; in particular, there would be no formal notification in accordance with Article 8 (2) (b) of the American Convention.They add that at the pre-trial hearing, the accused would not know of the charges and evidence against him and would therefore not be able to exercise his defense, and; once the preliminary investigation is completed, -when the charges are brought and a preliminary hearing is set-, only testimony would be taken in evidence. They also allege that in the preliminary hearing prior to the trial –which is conducted subsequent to the prosecution’s presentation of the accusation and in which the judge rules on whether the accusation or complaint is in order-17 the accused is not obliged to attend and, and if he does attend, the accused’s testimony is dependent on the judge’s decision. They also say that the accused is unable to present evidence during the trial that he did not request during the preliminary hearing. 13 Law published in the Official Gazette [Diario Oficial La Gaceta] on June 6, 2006. Law published in the Official Gazette on June 9, 2010. 15 They cite, for example, Article 451 bis of Law 8.503 (entitled “Remand of cases” [Juicio de reenvío]”), which provides that: “An appeal lodged against a judgment to remand the case shall be heard by the respective Appeals Court, made up of judges other than those who ruled on the previous occasion. If the court cannot be composed of new judges because the impediment covers both principals and alternates, or if there is an insufficient number of alternates, jurisdiction will be taken by those principals that may be necessary, regardless of the legal grounds and with no liability for disciplinary action against them”. 16 For example, petitioner Rojas Madrigal reports that in the “La Reforma” detention center, there are 1,200 convicts and one legal advisor. 17 Petitioner Rojas Madrigal alleges that the defense attorney and the accused do not receive a copy of the prosecution’s accusation, which is made known to defense counsel and physically made available to the the accused at the preliminary hearing. 14 4