257. The Court also underscores that, when this case was being processed before this Court, in both the judgment of March 9, 2012, delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Mendoza in favor of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, as well as the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber of Mendoza handed down in favor of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza on August 21, 2012, regarding the appeals for review filed after the issue of Merits Report No. 172/10 in this case (supra paras. 92, 94 and 164), it was also established that the appeals in cassation had been rejected based on the argument that the defense counsel sought a review of issues of fact and evidence, and that these matters were “beyond the scope [of the remedy].” 336 Applying control of conformity with the Convention, it was recognized that these criteria had been contrary to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and that, in particular, they had not afforded an integral review of the decision appealed and of the issues discussed and analyzed by the lower court. 337 258. Lastly, the Court finds it pertinent to refer to the State’s arguments regarding the possibility for the victims, with the exception of Ricardo David Videla Fernández, to file appeals for review by which, finally, the sentences to life imprisonment and reclusion for life, respectively, were annulled. This remedy is regulated as follows in the national Code of Criminal Procedure: 338 Appeal for Review Admissibility Art. 479. The appeal for review shall be admissible at all times and in favor of the convicted person, against final judgments when: 1) The facts established as the grounds for the conviction are irreconcilable with those established for another irrevocable criminal judgment. 2) The contested judgment was founded on documentary or testimonial evidence the falseness of which has been declared in a subsequent irrevocable judgment. 3) The conviction has been pronounced as a result of malfeasance, bribery, or another offense the existence of which has been declared in a subsequent irrevocable judgment. 4) Following the conviction, new facts or probative elements supervene or are discovered, which alone or together with those already examined in the proceedings, clearly establish that the act did not exist, that the convicted person did not commit it, or that the act committed falls under a more favorable criminal law. 5) A more lenient criminal law than the one applied in the judgment shall be applied retroactively. 259. Also, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Mendoza indicates: 339 Review Art. 495. Grounds The appeal for review shall be admissible at all times and in favor of the convicted person, against final judgments: 1) If the facts established as the grounds for the conviction are irreconcilable with those established for another irrevocable criminal judgment. 336 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Mendoza of March 9, 2012, in case No. 102,319 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome XV, folio 7892), and Judgment of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber of August 21, 2012, in case No. 14,087 (file of annexes to the representative’s final written arguments, tome XVII, folios 8200 to 8201 and 8218 to 8219). 337 Cf. Judgment of the Federal Criminal Cassation Chamber of August 21, 2012, in case No. 14,087 (file of annexes to the representative’s final written arguments, tome XVII, folio 8219), and Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Mendoza of March 9, 2012, in case No. 102,319 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome XV, folios 7890 and 7894 to 7895). 338 4185). Cf. National Code of Criminal Procedure (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VII, folios 339 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Mendoza (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VIII, folio 4260). 85