opportunity for defense. Under Article 411, it was not possible to examine matters that had already been discussed and decided in cassation, unless they were based on new grounds or new evidence. 201 A.2. Law No. 8503 of 2006 168. On June 6, 2006, Law No. 8503 entitled “Law for the Opening of Criminal Cassation (Reforms Articles 15, 369, 410, 411, 414, 447 and 449, adds Article 449 bis and 451 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reforms Articles 62, 93, adds Article 93 bis of the Organic Law of the Judiciary)” entered into force. This law amended and added various articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure related to appeals for cassation 202 and review. 203 For example, Article 369 added as a defect in the judgment that justifies cassation, subparagraph j) “[w]hen the judgment has not been issued through due process or with an opportunity for defense.” 204 In addition, Article 449 of the CCP, established that “[…] evidence proposed by or on behalf of the accused is admissible [in cassation], including evidence related to the determination of the facts in dispute, when it is indispensable to support the claim being formulated and in the cases authorized in the review procedure […].” 205 Said article also authorizes the receptioneven ex officio- of oral evidence by the Court of Cassation. Furthermore, Article 449 bis established that “[t]he Court of Cassation shall assess the merits of the claims invoked in the appeal and their grounds, examining the proceedings and the records of the hearing, so that it may evaluate the manner in which the trial judges assessed the evidence and reached their decision. If the records are insufficient to make such an assessment, it may reproduce in cassation the oral evidence of the trial which, in its view, is necessary to examine the merits of the claim, and will evaluate it in relation to the rest of the proceedings. Likewise, it may directly assess the evidence that has been introduced in writing at trial.” 206 Finally, as noted previously, transitory provision I of Law 8503 207 established a special review procedure for “persons convicted of a criminal offense prior to the enactment of this law, who have been prevented from filing an appeal in cassation against the judgment, due to the rules that regulated its admissibility on that date […] and who may file a motion for review of the judgment before the competent court, invoking in each case, the grievance and the factual and legal aspects that could not be heard in cassation.” (supra para. 46). A.3. Law No. 8837 of 2010 169. On June 9, 2010, Law No. 8837 entitled “Creation of an appeals procedure, other reforms to the appeals system and implementation of new rules on oral proceedings in 201 Cf. Law No. 7594, original version, Article 411. Declaration of inadmissibility. When the claim has been filed outside the situations that authorize it, without observing the established formalities, or when it is manifestly unfounded, the court, ex officio, shall declare it inadmissible; without prejudice to the corresponding caution in the case of formal errors. Nor shall it be admissible to raise, by way of review, matters that have already been discussed and resolved in cassation, unless they are based on new reasons or new evidence. 202 Cf. Law No. 8503 of 2006, Article 1, which amended inter alia, Article 447 of the CCP, indicated in relation to the processing that “[t]he Court of Cassation may declare the motion inadmissible if it finds that the decision is not subject to appeal, that the motion has been filed extemporaneously or that the party does not have the right to appeal, in which case it shall so declare and send the case file back to the original court […]." (evidence file annex 1 of the State’s answering brief, folio 28474). 203 Cf. With respect to the review procedure, Article 1 of Law No. 8503 that amended Article 410 established that “it shall contain specific reference to the grounds on which it is based and the applicable legal provisions. Additionally, the documentary evidence that is involved shall be attached and, as the case may be, the place or archive where it is located shall be indicated.” (evidence file annex 1 of the State’s answering brief, folio 28473) 204 Cf. Law No. 8503 of 2006, Article 2 (evidence file annex 1 of the State’s answering brief, folio 28475) 205 Cf. Law No. 8503 of 2006, Article 2 (evidence file annex 1 of the State’s answering brief, folio 28474 and 28475). 206 Cf. Law No. 8503 of 2006, Article 2 (evidence file annex 1 of the State’s answering brief, folio 28475). 207 Cf. Law No. 8503 of 2006, Article 2 (evidence file annex 1 of the State’s answering brief, folio 28477). 56