33 unpredictable exercise,” since the “crimes charged by the accuser are irrelevant,” as confirmed by the experts who testified in the public hearing held by the Court; k) an action challenging constitutionality is not an ordinary remedy, but a very specific action different from all other domestic remedies; the proceeding involved is costly, difficult and lengthy; l) applying the State’s interpretation, the argument that an action challenging constitutionality must be filed in order for domestic remedies to be considered pursued and exhausted would mean that cases where the sentencing court orders damages that are irreparable for the alleged victims could not be brought to the Commission or to the Court if those court rulings are enforced. In effect, to file an action challenging constitutionality in Costa Rica, a case must still be pending with the courts; m) the alleged victims could not have required to file an action challenging the constitutionality of their conviction to exhaust domestic remedies before turning to the inter-American system since, under Article 10 of Costa Rica’s Constitution, actions challenging the constitutionality of convictions are impermissible; n) an action challenging constitutionality is not a remedy that must be pursued and exhausted in accordance with Article 46(1) of the Convention, because it is not an ordinary remedy under generally accepted principles of international law and is not an effective remedy for purposes of protecting the violated rights; o) under Costa Rican criminal procedural law, a petition seeking review is only permitted when, in case ending in a conviction, some right of defense per se is said to have been violated. Therefore, under Costa Rican procedural law, a violation of any other aspect covered under the guarantee of due process cannot be protected by filing for habeas corpus relief, pursuant to Article 408.g of the Costa Rican Code of Criminal Procedure; p) in Mr. Herrera Ulloa’s case, the violations of due process alleged in the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence that the alleged victims’ representatives filed with the Inter-American Court are threefold, namely: a) the right to appeal a judgment to a higher court; b) the right to a hearing by an impartial court or judge; and c) the right to be presumed innocent. Violation of Mr. Herrera Ulloa’s right of defense has not been claimed. His circumstances were such that he did not have standing to file an appeal seeking review of the guilty verdict; q) in the instant case, the one remedy allowed against the guilty verdict delivered by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, namely the remedy of cassation, was pursued and exhausted; r) none of the remedies that the State mentioned in its brief answering the application and its observations on the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence rises to the standards of adequacy and effectiveness that the Convention and general international law require in order for the exception