the Commission, without specifying the serious error that had allegedly been committed in violation of its right of defense or effectively demonstrating such prejudice. 94 In particular, the State did not identify which particular arguments it was unable to make in view of the alleged expansion of the subject matter of the dispute after the issuance of the Admissibility Report, and instead made arguments that pertain to the analysis of the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. D. Objection regarding the alleged “use of the inter-American system as a fourth instance” D.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 79. The State alleged that the Commission used the inter-American system as a fourth instance. It argued that the Commission’s basic premise for understanding the alleged violations and concluding that there was a violation of the right to appeal the judgment was the dismissal of the appeals filed. It pointed out that the alleged victims in their arguments only expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of the domestic judgments against them, without any real and objective basis for the alleged right to appeal the judgment. Thus, they would be using the inter-American system as a fourth instance for the review of national judicial decisions and of the respective judicial proceedings, in order to be exonerated from the criminal responsibility already determined. According to the State, the alleged victims had timely access to adequate and effective remedies, and furthermore, Costa Rica adapted its legal system and created additional remedies. However, they were unwilling to have recourse to the domestic courts, so they now seek to have the inter-American system review the alleged errors of fact or law that have been decided at the national level. In addition, the State presented specific arguments with respect to Groups 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the alleged victims. 95 In particular: a) with respect to Group 2, the State argued that the technical defense of Rafael Rojas took “clearly inappropriate” steps in the domestic jurisdiction as part of a strategy aimed at simulating defects or irregularities in the processing and trial of the case in order to “open the door to the [inter-American system]” and thus seek a new examination of the merits of the facts that had been adjudicated. The State also considered that, in order to accept the alleged victim’s arguments on the manner in which his cassation appeals were decided, 96 reference must be made to the evidence that was analyzed by the trial court, and a hypothetical operation of inclusion or exclusion of the evidence must be carried out to define its essential role in the solution of the case. Thus, such exercise is part of the analysis to be carried out by a higher judge on appeal in the domestic sphere. b) with respect to Group 3, the State pointed out that the alleged victims Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Archbold Jay, through abbreviated procedures, acknowledged their responsibility for the crime for which were convicted, and their dissatisfaction relates to the length of the sentence imposed. It considered that disagreement with the conviction is a situation that does not necessarily imply that the demand to analyze the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention should be accepted, since what is legally relevant is that the alleged victims had access to a means of appeal that made possible 94 This, despite the fact that during the public hearing Judge Humberto Sierra Porto expressly asked the State to explain said prejudice. 95 According to paragraphs 56 and 57 of this judgment, the Court will not refer to the arguments of the parties with respect to Groups 1 and 5, nor to arguments of the parties regarding the alleged victims Carlos Eduardo Yepes, Fernando Saldarriaga, and Miguel Antonio Valverde Montoya of Group 3, or to the criminal cases of the alleged victim Damas Vega Atencio, of Group 8. 96 Specifically referred to paragraphs 21-22 and 199-128 of the pleadings and motions brief of the common interveners AIDEF. 31