32. As to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, he states that there is no ordinary appeals procedure available, and that for that reason, he could not avail himself of the guarantee contained in Article 8.2 (h) of the Convention38. Petition 221-05: Miguel Mora Calvo 33. It appears from the petition that Mr. Miguel Mora Calvo was tried in three criminal trials, which ended in the following judgments: a) judgment No. 736-98 of the First Circuit Court of Alajuela (Tribunal del Primer Circuito Judicial) on September 24, 1998, which sentenced him to seven and a half years’ imprisonment for the crime of breaking the law on psychotropic drugs to the prejudice of public health; b) judgment No. 632-00 handed down by the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José on December 5, 2000, which sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment for the crime of possession, transportation and storage of drugs, aggravated by having been committed internationally, and c) judgment No. 218-03 of the Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela on April 29, 2003, which had been completed. The petitioner alleges that Costa Rica violated Articles 2, 8.1, 8.2.h and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof. 34. The petitioner alleges a number of violations of due process during the handling of the criminal cases in which the abovementioned judgments were issued. As to the requirement in the Convention that domestic remedies be exhausted, he claims that the exceptions contained in Article 46 (2) (a) and (b) of the Convention apply.He alleges that even though he did avail himself of the remedy available in Costa Rica, that is, the appeals procedure, that procedure does not satisfy the standards of Article 8.2 (h) of the Convention, and that there is no ordinary appeals proceeding39. He alleges that at the time of his convictions–prior to Law 8.503-- the appeals procedure was formalistic, inaccessible and contrary to the American Convention. With respect to the review procedure provided for in Transitional Article I of that law, he alleges that it is insufficient because his convictions were res judicata, as demonstrated when he filed a request for review of judgment No. 736-98 in which he alleged a lack of guarantee against double jeopardy, and it was declared inadmissible. 35. Regarding judgment No. 736-98, the petitioner presented one appeal and four petitions for review –at least two subsequent to law 8.503—whose outcomes did not endorse his claims40. As to judgment No. 218-03, he filed an appeal which was denied on August 20, 2004.He claims that he did not seek a review, given that the judges that would hear the case would be the same as those who sat on the appeals case. He filed two requests for review of judgment No. 632-00. The first was prior to the entry into force of Law 8.503; it was denied, and the other was after [the law], which was denied on the merits on September 16, 2009 41. Petition 587-05: Manuel Hernández Quesada 36. It appears from the petition that Mr. Manuel Hernández Quesada was sentenced on June 17, 2003, in judgment No. 332-2003 of the Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, to 24 years’ imprisonment for two concurrent crimes of rape, and one crime of sexual abuse of a minor. The petitioner alleges that the State is responsible for violation of Articles 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 25 and 29 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. He alleges that 38 The information provided indicates that the petitioner had filed an appeal against judgment No 106-2002, which was decided on March 28, 2003, and was denied. He has also filed two requests for review of that judgment, which were admitted in part on April 16, 2004 and June 7, 2006. Regarding judgment No 92-2002, he filed around five requests for review, which were denied (the most recent was decided on July 5, 2007). The petitioner indicates that his defense attorney had not presented an appeal against that judgment. It also appears that the petitioner had filed a number of petitions for amparo and habeas corpus in reference to the claims in the present petition. 39 The petitioner adds that both the Commission and the Inter-American Court indicate –in the case of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica- that domestic remedies are considered exhausted with the filing of an appeal. 40 The request for review filed by the petitioner on September 5, 2008 against judgment No. 736-98was declared inadmissible on November 25, 2008. 41 It also appears from the case file that on May 23, 2005, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of amparo, because he was not granted the right to appeal his three convictions. On May 31, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber denied the petition in full. On December 28, 2005, the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition for violation of Article 8.2 (h), and on January 6, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber rejected it. 8