8 framed. The Criminal Review Proceedings law, together with section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, also amended by the aforementioned law, which provides for the possibility of curing formal defects, "significantly reduces the formalities involved in criminal review proceedings, so that a court hearing an appeal on the grounds of error must consider the motion, even if there are defects in the way the motion has been framed. Only where the defects are such that the Court cannot satisfy the motion, the moving party is given an opportunity to correct such defects at a hearing. Thus, even in such a case a court may not declare a motion for review inadmissible without giving the moving party an opportunity to cure any defects”; (iv) as regards the requirement that the review proceedings allow for comprehensive review of the judgment, international law rules provide that “the right to review clearly does not necessarily mean that […] there must be a right to appeal in the narrow sense". Any conviction requires two operations: Firstly, the ‘proven fact’ must be determined (finding of facts); secondly —after the facts have been established— the facts must fit one or more legal rules (finding of law). Both operations can be strictly controlled through a motion for review of a criminal judgment pursuant to an error, the former by examining the causes of the facts and the latter by examining how the law was applied to the facts in the criminal judgment. The motion for review of a criminal judgment on the grounds of error "provides a measure of control over the factual findings by the higher court [...]. The Costa Rican review system can normally provide ordinary and effective recourse that is accessible and comprehensive so as to allow a higher court to carry out a comprehensive examination of all the issues of fact and of law disputed and analyzed by a trial court, which does ensure a comprehensive examination of the challenged decision through which the higher court may reconsider a court decision that runs counter to the law”. The American Convention does not guarantee “the right to two successive trials by two different courts so that the second trial preempts the first one, but rather is intended to guarantee control or review of the conviction entered in the singleinstance trial, so as to prevent an error from causing harm to the accused". The Convention is complied with by establishing a remedy against an allegedly erroneous conviction, regardless of its name (i.e., appeal or review) provided that such remedy makes it possible to determine: (a) whether the procedural rules set out for the benefit of the accused have been observed in determining the facts that the lower court deemed to be proven in its judgment, and (b) the law applied to the proven fact. A “repetition or extension of the trial to a second instance would not satisfy [the international obligation]; at any rate would unnecessarily protract the process, and would aggravate the accused's situation by putting him twice in jeopardy, which can bring about a vicious circle, because if the repetition (i.e., the second instance) results in a new conviction, the process —following this rationale— would need to be repeated and then trial would have to be carried out once again (i.e., a third instance) so as to comply with the instruments in question"; (v) the Law Extending Criminal Review Proceedings incorporated subsection (j) into section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which established a defect in the judgment justifying review by a higher court "where the judgment has not been issued pursuant to a due process or with an opportunity for defense". The introduction of this provision “ratifies the wide variety of grounds for granting a motion for review of a criminal judgment in Costa Rica, including any violation of the