c) it modified the judicial review proceeding, which shall act against the judgment issued by the tribunals of appeal12: i) when the existence of contradictory orders issued by said tribunals are alleged, or by said tribunals and by the Court of Criminal Review,13 or ii) when the judgment does not comply with or erroneously applies a substantive or procedural legal precept.14 12. The representatives took positive note of the sanction made on April 29, 2010 by the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica to the “Law for the Creation of Appeal Proceedings for Judgments, additional amendments to the provisions of appeals and implementation of new orality rules in criminal proceedings,” which became the Law of the Republic No. 8.837 after its publication in the “La Gaceta”, Costa Rica’s Official State Newspaper, on June 9, 2010. Also, they stated that although ��full compliance with this chapter of the Judgment will only be achieved when the new procedural system gains complete practical enforcement,” it must, however, be assumed that the State will apply this system appropriately and in good faith. Also, they manifested that “with the introduction of the new procedural system, the State has complied formally with that set forth by the Judgment and that any divergence that may arise during the application of said system would relate to general compliance with duties that Costa Rica must undertake in accordance with the Convention, rather than the execution of the Judgment on the [present case].” Finally, the representatives stated that with “the complete and definitive execution of the Judgment, […] Costa Rica honors once again its recognized commitment to the international protection of human rights.” 13. The Inter-American Commission “evaluat[ed] the progress stemming from the approval of the Law No. 8.837 and consider[ed] that it incorporates elements taken into account by the Court in its [J]udgment regarding the scope of Article 8(2)(h) […] of the American Convention.” Also, it observed that, in relation to this progress, it is necessary to assess its practical implementation, since the Commission “has a great number of petitions related to the issue set forth in the present operative paragraph of the [J]udgment.” 14. The Tribunal positively values the various measures adopted by Costa Rica to comply with the Judgment of the present case, fundamentally, taking into account the high complexity of the material —the system of appeals for criminal matters— and the measures which are necessary to comply with this goal. Notwithstanding the difficulties, since the issuance of the Judgment, the State adopted various measures in order to advance toward full compliance with it provisions. Accordingly, the Inter-American Court viewed the approval of Law. No. 8.503 “Law of Opening of Criminal Cassation” (hereinafter “Law of Opening”) positively and the fact that said law was approved one year and seven months after the notification of the Judgment. Also, the Tribunal valued that the Judicial Power adopted “immediate measures,” even before the approval of the Inaugural Law, so as to bring judicial practice in to line with the provisions of the Judgment.15 12 Cf. Article 467.- Appealable Orders, Code of Criminal Procedure, reformed by Article 5 of the “Law of Creation of Recourses of Appeal of Judgments, other reforms to the regimen of challenges and implementation of new rules of orality in the criminal process.” 13 Cf. Article 468.- Motives, Code of Criminal Procedure, reformed by Article 5 of the “Law of Creation of Recourses of Appeal of Judgments, other reforms to the regimen of challenges and implementation of new rules of orality in the criminal process.” 14 Cf. Article 468.- Motives, Code of Criminal Procedure, supra note 13. 15 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Supervision of Compliance of Judgment. Order of the Court of July 9, 2009, Considering Clause twenty-eight.