postponements.178 In addition, procedural rules should be established that permit the appellant to exercise his right of defense adequately and to present all the necessary evidence to support his arguments. This effective remedy also means that the analysis of a judicial remedy by the competent authority cannot be reduced to a mere formality; rather the said authority must examine the reasons cited by the appellant and expressly refer to them.179 134. In the specific case of Costa Rica, this Court has ruled twice on the appeals system. In Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, the Court established that, in that specific case, the remedies of cassation “did not satisfy the requirement of a liberal remedy that would permit the higher court to make a thorough analysis or examination of all the issues debated and analyzed in the lower court.”180 Therefore, the Court declared that the State had violated Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and ordered Costa Rica to “adapt its domestic laws to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h). of the American Convention, in relation to Article 2 thereof.”181 135. Subsequently, in Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, the Court again had occasion to examine the appeals system in Costa Rica particularly the one developed in Law 8503 on the “Opening of Criminal Cassation” under which, using the cause for review created by Transitory Provision I, a person convicted of a criminal offense could obtain a comprehensive review of the judgment that included both factual and legal aspects;182 and in Law 8837, which entered into force on December 9, 2011, and created a remedy of appeal that would allow for a comprehensive examination of the adverse judgment, thus providing individuals with pending appeals for cassation and review with access to a comprehensive remedy.183 On that occasion, the Court found that, owing to reforms introduced by Laws 8503 and 8837, the State had rectified the deficiencies in the application of the rules for appeals.184 136. That said, the Court must analyze the criminal appeals filed by the alleged victim in order to determine whether the appeals system guaranteed a comprehensive review of the judgment against Soct Cochran. 137. As already mentioned, the following remedies were filed in the instant case: (i) a remedy of cassation, and (ii) three appeals for review once the appeals system had been amended. The formal and substantial arguments presented on each occasion were not always the same, but the Court has been able to verify that, in all cases, the Third Chamber responded to all the appellant’s claims and substantiated its rulings appropriately. 138. The Court underlines that, in Ruling No. 2005-00126 deciding the remedy of cassation, the Third Chamber re-examined the way in which the evidence had been Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 101, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their family members v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, paras. 230 and 231. 178 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, supra, para. 96, and Case of Baraona Bray v. Chile, supra, para. 148. 179 180 Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 167. 181 Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 198 and fifth operative paragraph. 182 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 262. 183 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 263. 184 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 265. 39