7 report must refer to the observations of the representatives and the Commission (supra Considering clauses No. 14 and 15) and furnish current information on the compliance with this item. * * * 19. That with regard to the obligation to adjust its domestic legal system within a reasonable term to conform to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention in relation to Article 2 thereof (operative paragraph No. 5 of the Judgment), the State informed that on April 28, 2006, the Legislative Assembly enacted Law No. 8503, called “Law Extending Criminal Review Proceedings” (hereinafter, also “Criminal Review Proceedings Law”), published on June 6, 2006 in the official gazette La Gaceta No. 108. The State attached a copy of such publication and, additionally, pointed out that: (i) pursuant to the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court, “both the Third Division of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Criminal Cassation Court adjusted their case law […] with administrative and legal interpretation action, even before amending the Code of Criminal Procedure through the Criminal Review Proceedings Law". Among other “immediate measures", the rules governing admissibility of evidence were made more flexible and expanded, and factual evidence was admitted in criminal review proceedings; (ii) by enacting the Criminal Review Proceedings Law, “Costa Rica complied with the Inter-American Court’s order in its judgment of July 2, 2004,” since the law: “(a) Relaxes the formalities of the motion for review; both in terms of admissibility requirements and other formalities typical of review proceedings; (b) expressly provides for the possibility for alleging a violation of due process or of the right to defense, so full provision is made for the possibility of reviewing any kind of defects or violations to the rights of convicts; (c) provides an opportunity to receive factual evidence through the review proceedings, provided one of the causes for a review proceeding is present, including the rising of new facts or new evidence; (d) offers an opportunity to produce evidence that was not admitted at trial, because it was arbitrarily dismissed or rejected; even the Court or Division may ex officio order that evidence be produced when it deems it necessary, appropriate or instrumental to settle the case; (e) extensively provides for the analysis to be carried out on review, allowing the moving party to rely on the sound or video recording of the trial as grounds for its motion for review; (f) reduces the formalities of the review procedure; and (g) provides an opportunity to file a motion for appeal when the motion for review has been rejected based on the admissibility criteria in force before the law was enacted”; (iii) as to the requirement that the review relief be accessible and simple, pursuant to section 447 of the Criminal Review Proceedings law the Court may reject a motion for review if it considers that the order being challenged may not be reviewed pursuant to review proceedings, that the motion for review has been filed after the term to do so or that the moving party has no right to move for review. In the event the motion is admissible, it shall proceed, and the Court shall issue a decision on the merits, even when it considers that there are defects in the way the motion has been