the judgment established in Article 8(2)(h), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. 21 However, there is no identity or similarity as to the parties, since in the judgment in the Herrera Ulloa case of July 2, 2004, the Court’s ruling was made only with respect to the State of Costa Rica and Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, 22 without any reference whatsoever to the seventeen alleged victims in this case. Nor is there any identity between the object of the Herrera Ulloa case and the instant case, given that on this occasion the petitioners allege the incompatibility with the American Convention of norms that did not exist at the time when said case was decided, namely: Law 8503 of 2006 and Law 8837 of 2010. 30. It should also be noted that in the Order on Monitoring Compliance with Judgment of November 22, 2010, issued in the Herrera Ulloa case, the Court assessed the creation of the appeal remedy established in Law 8837, but did not rule on its future application. Nor did it rule on the reforms to the remedies of cassation and review established in Laws 8503 and 8837, nor on their respective transitory provisions I and III, which established a special motion of review for persons whose convictions became final prior to the entry into force of such laws. Likewise, the Court made no mention of the possibility contemplated in transitory provision III of Law 8837 that in cases pending resolution, the appellant could convert his petition for a writ of reversal on cassation to a motion for appeal. 23 In the instant case, the compatibility of these rules with the right to a comprehensive remedy established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention is disputed. Therefore, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. B. Objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 31. The State argued that, in relation to the alleged victims who considered that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention had been violated and who had final convictions, the domestic remedies had not been exhausted when the petition was lodged with the Commission and forwarded to the State, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1996, Law 8503 of 2006 and its transitory provision I, as well as Law 8837 of 2010 and its transitory provision III. It argued that in some cases, the remedy of appeal on cassation was not pursued which, with its “de-formalization” since the early 90s, allowed for the comprehensive review of the judgment. In other cases, neither the review procedure established in the Codes of Criminal Procedure of 1973 and 1996, nor the special review procedure established in the transitory provisions of Laws 8503 and 8837 - which guarantees an accessible, adequate and effective remedy, especially for persons with convictions - were used. Furthermore, it pointed out that those alleged victims who did file review proceedings under the transitory provisions of Laws Nos. 8503 and 8837 did not indicate the reason for the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) and why the judgment should be reviewed, and therefore did not properly exhaust domestic remedies. The State also presented specific and detailed arguments with respect to each of the eight petitions and requested that the case be declared inadmissible. 32. At the same time, the State noted that the alleged victims Rafael Rojas Madrigal and Damas Vega Atencio raised a series of complaints in relation to their conditions of detention, health care, food and alleged acts of torture during their stay at the Institutional Care Center In the Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, the Court also examined and declared violations of Articles 13, 8 and 25 of the Convention. 22 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, first and second operative paragraphs. 23 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2010, Considering paragraphs 15 and 16. 21 14