appeals with respect to convictions. Thus, he requested that a remand be ordered for a new substantiation of the accused facts in a new ordinary criminal trial. 336. In this regard, the Court of Criminal Cassation considered that the first claim was inadmissible for the following reasons: “Pursuant to the provisions of [the CCP], it is inappropriate to attempt to reintroduce its discussion in this venue [...].It should be noted that in that decision, this Court pointed out that when the application of the abbreviated procedure was agreed upon and a sentence was handed down under it, transitory provision IV of the Judicial Reorganization Law was in force, which allowed the rules regarding the abbreviated procedure to be applied to those cases that were in the trial phase and were being processed in accordance with the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure.” 479 337. Regarding the second claim that the abbreviated procedure in which he was sentenced disregards the right to a second hearing, the Court of Criminal Cassation considered that it was inadmissible, taking into account the following: It is clear that the complaint is presented outside the hypotheses that authorize it, in addition to being manifestly unfounded [...]. What the plaintiff is claiming is a remedy not provided for in the rules in force to challenge the conviction (motion for appeal), which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court […].There is a clear difference in doctrine between the appeal and the appeal in cassation, especially in terms of scope. Suffice it for the purposes of this resolution to mention that in an appeal there is a "trial on the facts," with the possibility of a new evaluation of the evidence, while in cassation what takes place is a "trial on the judgment" [...]. In accordance with the object and purpose of the American Convention, which is the effective protection of human rights, it must be understood that the remedy provided for in Article 8(2)(h) of that treaty must be an effective ordinary remedy through which a higher judge or court seeks to correct judicial decisions that are contrary to law [...].Following the notion of the margin of appreciation, the legislator has opted to comply with the requirements of the Inter-American Court by allowing the review of the sentence via cassation or revision of the sentence in terms of its considerations on the factual and evidentiary basis, but not by renewing the oral and public trial. 480 338. Thus, the Court of Criminal Cassation explained the reasons why it considered that the grievances cited by the appellant were inadmissible; on the one hand, it clearly and precisely indicated the reasons why the rules relating to the abbreviated procedure were applied to the specific case and, on the other, it provided a reasoning on how, in its opinion, the Costa Rican appeals system would comply with the requirements of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. It should be noted that the appellant did not indicate, on that occasion, the aspects of his conviction that were not reviewed due to the non-existence at that time of an appeal in criminal matters. 339. In the fifth motion for review, Mr. Mora argued that “there are clear 'in-iudicando' defects to the detriment of Articles 39 and 41 of the Constitution, inasmuch as this judicial procedure pejoratively circumvents the right to a double judicial instance […]. [That] he was forcibly compelled to challenge the sentence with an appeal in cassation full of formalities and conditions, contrary to what is considered an ordinary appeal [.] He invoked the judgment […in Herrera Ulloa, among others], seeking the admissibility of his claim, based on new evidence [...]. He also requested [that] the 'automatic repeal' of the Law on Opening Criminal Cassation Nº 8503, since it is contrary to the American Convention […], Article 8(2)(h) [and] the annulment of the judgment […].” 481 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00557 of the Court of November 25, 2008, (evidence file, folios 35485 480 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00557 of the Court of November 25, 2008, (evidence file, folios 35486 481 Cf. Decision No. 2009-00225 of the Court of June 12, 2009, (evidence file, folio 35489). 479 of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, and 35486). of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, to 35488). of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, 110