filed to an appeal under the new law. In this case, most of the alleged victims were in scenario 1, that is, their only option under Law No. 8837 was to file a one-time motion for review of the judgment. On the other hand, Mr. Rojas Madrigal’s case was in scenario 2; however, his request for conversion was rejected because “he did not explain the reasons that led him to consider that [...] the appeal of the judgment should be applied to him.” Consequently, with respect to the victims in the instant case, the Commission concluded that the reform did not remedy the violation of the right established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. 245. The Inter-American Defenders agreed with the Commission and added that in all the cases in which the alleged victims turned to the Judiciary, they encountered obstacles to obtaining adequate and effective access to the right to appeal the judgment, such as “excessive formalities and capricious and arbitrary interpretations.” In addition, they argued that, since transitory provision III of Law 8837 required, under penalty of inadmissibility, that the grievance be specifically stated when requesting the conversion of the writ of cassation into the remedy of appeal, the Third Chamber rejected the conversions of the appeals. For the defense, this requirement “implied a mere formality that was totally unnecessary and contrary to the right to appeal.” They also argued that by repealing the grounds of due process as a means to initiate the review procedure established in Law 8837, the essence of the institute of review was “normatively” removed, in violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 25(1) of the Convention. They further alleged that in this case there was a failure on the part of the State to observe the control of conventionality. 246. With respect to Rafael Rojas (Group 2), they alleged that: (i) in the decision of the Third Chamber that heard the cassation appeal filed by the alleged victim against his conviction for use of false document against the public interest, as well as in the decision of October 19, 2007 that declared without merit an appeal for review, formalities prevailed over fundamental rights; ii) the fact that Rafael Rojas was not given a written copy of his conviction for embezzlement violates the right to a full review, 349 and iii) the request for the conversion of the writ of cassation into a motion for appeal was denied because the appellant did not explain the reasons that led him to consider that the appeal process should be applied to him, and thus the Third Chamber created new obstacles to access his rights, from a formalistic position. 247. With respect to Manuel Hernández Quesada (Group 6), they alleged that the writ of cassation filed by the alleged victim was heard before the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa, within a formalistic framework that did not allow for a comprehensive review of the conviction. They pointed out that Mr. Hernández even filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention and a motion for amparo alleging the lack of formal charges, both of which were unsuccessful, since this was not the way to present such allegations in a criminal appeals system that would not allow for a comprehensive review of the conviction. They also pointed out that Mr. Hernández requested a review procedure in which he alleged the omission of formal charges, evidence and legal definitions of the criminal case; the Third Chamber declared that the review was inadmissible, stating that the acts for which he was accused and sentenced “were formally attributed to him,” this being a way of resolving the case without further substantiation or sufficient motivation, and “far from carrying out a comprehensive review of the judgment.” In this sense, they understood that a double violation occurred, since the full examination of the judgment was affected and the possibility of protecting due process through an appeal or review procedure devoid of rigorousness in its admission was rejected. 349 In relation to Mr. Rojas Madrigal, they alleged the violation of his rights to defense, due process and access to justice established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 25(1) of the Convention. These arguments are analyzed in Chapter VIII.III of this judgment. 77