second conviction. Finally, they indicated that his first criminal case concluded with judgment No. 680-2007 of July 17, 2007, and the Criminal Cassation decision of March 11, 2008, and that through judgment No. 2012-001297 of August 29, 2012, the Third Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled on an erroneous basis to determine the sentence; in other words, it did not hear the facts or evidence assessed in the trial. In their final written arguments, they held that “the fact that Jorge Martínez’s challenge to judgment No. N°680-2007 […]eventually addressed in the decision on the appeal for cassation, No. 2008-00232 [...][,] or in the appeal for review, decision No. 2012-1297 […] does not make such remedies […] adequate, suitable or effective […].” 35. The Inter-American Defenders requested that the objection be rejected. They explained that all the alleged victims had filed an appeal in cassation against the conviction, considering that the domestic remedy had been exhausted, and that if some of them did not file for review, it would be because this is not part of the challenge procedure. They explained that the review provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1996, as well as in the transitory provisions of Laws 8503 and 8837, is an exceptional remedy; therefore, the alleged victims were not obliged to exhaust it. Furthermore, they indicated that the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies could never be extended to those means or procedures that arise after the petition has been lodged with the Commission. They also presented specific and detailed arguments regarding the alleged victims Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal, Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga, Guillermo Rodríguez Silva, Marín Rojas Hernández and Manuel Hernández Quesada, to argue that they did exhaust the domestic remedies. 36. The common interveners SIPDH requested that the State’s objection be declared inadmissible. First, they argued that in application of Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention, the Court should consider the analysis of the objection together with the examination of the merits of the case, since this is when evidence and arguments can be invoked on the alleged existence or not of effective legal remedies. Secondly, they argued that in this case there was estoppel, because the State acknowledged before the Commission that the review procedure was exceptional; however, before the Court, the State argued that this remedy should have been exhausted. Third, they recalled that in the Herrera Ulloa case the Court confirmed the inefficacy of the remedy of cassation, so that it was not a remedy that the petitioners were obliged to exhaust. 37. Fourth, they argued that none of the petitioners was under the obligation to exhaust the special remedy of review contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1996 and the transitory provisions of Laws 8503 and 8837, since its filing required a final criminal judgment and it did not have the characteristics of a comprehensive remedy that could review facts and assess evidence. Fifth, they alleged that when the petitioners were already serving their prison sentences, the criminal remedy was adapted to Article 8(2)(h) by means of a motion for appeal, but that the legislation did not include the right of the alleged victims to invoke the new remedy of appeal. Finally, they presented specific and detailed arguments with respect to the alleged victims Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos Manuel González Lizano, Arturo Fallas Zúñiga, Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz, Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, Miguel Antonio Valverde Montoya, Miguel Mora Calvo and Damas Vega Atencio. 38. Regarding the conditions of detention and the lack of adequate medical care at the CAI La Reforma for Mr. Damas Vega Atencio, SIPDH indicated that Article 46(2)(b) of the American Convention is applicable, due to his disadvantaged situation with respect to any other citizen. It was argued that, being a person deprived of liberty materially and operationally limited his access to justice. This was exacerbated by his documented health 16