a judgment owing to the rules that regulated its admissibility” to now be able “to require the review of the judgment before the competent court, citing in each case the prejudice caused and the factual and legal aspects that could not be examined in cassation.” 84. On June 9, 2010, Law 8837 was published on “Creation of the remedy of appeal against a judgment, other reforms to the appeals system, and implementation of new rules on orality in criminal proceedings.” This law, in force since December 9, 2011, regulated the admissibility of the remedy of appeal as follows: Article 459: Admissibility of the remedy of appeal. The remedy of appeal against a judgment shall permit the full examination of the judgment, when the interested party alleges discrepancy with the determination of the facts, the incorporation and assessment of the evidence, the legal reasoning, or the establishment of the penalty. The higher court shall rule on the points that are expressly raised before it, but shall declare, even ex officio, any absolute defects and breaches of due process that are found in the judgment. 85. Finally, regarding the situation of those persons whose judgments were already res judicata before its enactment, Transitory Provision III of Law 8837 established: In all those cases in which a final judgment has been delivered when this law enters into force, and in which the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights has previously been alleged, the person convicted shall have the right to file, once, during the first six months, a review procedure that shall be heard in accordance with the competences established in this law, by the former courts of cassation or the Third Criminal Chamber. In cases in which judgment is pending, and in which the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights has been alleged previously, the appellant shall be granted two months to adapt his remedy of cassation to a remedy of appeal, which shall be filed before the former courts of cassation or the Third Chamber, as applicable, which shall forward the case file to the new courts of appeal for their ruling. The prejudice caused must be specifically described, at the risk of inadmissibility. VII MERITS 86. In the instant case, the Court will examine the scope of the State’s international responsibility for the alleged violation of Scot Cochran’s right to information on consular assistance within the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. It will also examine whether the judicial decision declaring him guilty was adopted by an impartial court and whether he was allowed to file appropriate judicial remedies against his sentence. 87. The Court will examine the arguments on the merits in the following order: (i) the right to personal liberty and judicial guarantees, in particular the right to information and effective access to consular assistance, in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure rights; (ii) the right to judicial guarantees, in particular to be tried by an impartial judge, and (iii) the right to appeal the judgment before a higher court in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure rights and to adopt domestic legal provisions. 88. The Court considers it essential, as it has in other cases,109 to reiterate that it is not a court that examines the criminal responsibility of the individual. Therefore, in this case, the Court will not issue an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Scot Cochran; but rather, on the conformity with the American Convention of the acts of certain public 109 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 134, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 76. 25