248. The SIPDH representatives agreed with the Commission and explained how the appeals filed by their clients were resolved. They added, with respect to Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay (Group 3) and Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7), that they pursued numerous legal remedies, both in criminal and in constitutional proceedings. However, the responses they received from the Third Chamber or the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Chamber indicated that they were not the competent bodies to decide these matters. They referred specifically to the responses received in the action of unconstitutionality, the appeal for cassation and the review procedures. Finally, they argued that the lack of a comprehensive remedy in criminal matters resulted in the violation of Article 8 of the Convention in relation to Article 25 thereof, regarding the general obligation to provide a simple, prompt and effective remedy. 249. The common interveners Factum Consorcio agreed with the Commission. They also pointed out that despite the entry into force of Law 8503 of 2006, the provision of Article 443 of the CCP excluded the possibility of reviewing factual or evidentiary aspects of the case, which continued to be governed by the so-called “principle of intangibility of the facts proven in the trial judgment,” which was applied by the Third Chamber in the specific case of Mr. Martínez Meléndez through decision 232-2008, when hearing his cassation appeal against the conviction. They also cited examples of facts that were not reviewed and evidence offered to support the cassation appeal, which, nevertheless, was denied; all of which would violate the right to obtain and access evidence and information of a public nature. 250. The State pointed out that before and after the enactment of the 1996 CCP, Costa Rica enforced and implemented the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, and that the mere name assigned to the remedy could not be used to “automatically” establish the satisfaction or not of that right, but that it was necessary to analyze the specific case to determine whether all the arguments that, according to the petitioners, prejudiced them in the judgment were heard and decided in a comprehensive manner. In this regard, it argued that an analysis of the 1973 CCP and the 1996 CCP would show that, even with the evolution of case law, it was possible to evaluate facts and evidence through an appeal in cassation. Moreover, the reforms introduced in the CCP of 1996 tended to make the review procedure more effective, efficient and accessible, with few formalities, which could be presented in a written document that did not even require the authentication or the advice of legal counsel, and contemplated the possibility of offering evidence to support the arguments (art. 410). According to the State, in the Herrera Ulloa case, the Inter-American Court found that in that specific case, the cassation appeal did not allow for a comprehensive review of the victim’s criminal conviction and ordered Costa Rica to adapt its domestic legal system, specifically with regard to the effective affirmation in the CCP of the guarantees contemplated in the right to a full review of the judgment. The objective of this legal reform was to eliminate the possibility of repeating isolated situations similar to the one in the case in question. 251. The State explained that long before the entry into force of Law 8837 of 2010, Costa Rica had adopted legislation and legal provisions aimed at addressing the violation of the right to appeal in criminal matters. This made it possible to hear and resolve a large number of cases involving this violation, through the cassation appeal regulated in Law 8503 of June 6, 2006, as well as the alleged violation of due process or opportunity of defense (Article 408 paragraph “g” of the CCP of 1996), an extremely broad basis for the admissibility of the review of a criminal conviction. The regulatory amendments introduced in Law 8503 of 2006 expressly included the possibility of presenting, in criminal cases in which a conviction has been handed down, all arguments relating to the assessment of the evidence and the determination of the facts (arts. 142, 184 and 363 of the CCP). 78