VII-3 RIGHT TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT BEFORE A HIGHER COURT,168 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS,169 AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS170 A. Arguments of the parties and observations of the Commission 127. The Commission did not find the State responsible for the violation of the right to obtain a comprehensive review of the judgment established in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.171 128. The representatives argued that, at the time the facts were tried and then forwarded to the Criminal Cassation Chamber, there was no remedy that guaranteed the right to appeal the judgment and to analyze the merits of the case. They added that Scot Cochran, in the exercise of his technical and material defense, had filed three appeals for review, which were rejected without further analysis of the factual and legal issues. They argued that most remedies of cassation were not admitted because they did not conform to the admissibility requirements established in article 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also argued that the Criminal Cassation Chamber, in order to authorize admissibility, had imposed limitations and a series of formalities on the remedy of cassation, so that the formalistic guidelines made it impossible for the purpose of the remedy to be assessed. Therefore, they asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 8(2)(h), in relation to Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention. 129. The State argued that the Commission had declared that the State was not responsible for the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention because, when hearing of the remedy of cassation, the Third Chamber had re-examined the assessment of the evidence made by the court a quo and exercised control over the way in which the substantive criminal law had been interpreted and applied. It added that the appeal for review constituted an opportunity for Scot Cochran to raise different complaints related to matters of both fact and evidence, such as the application of the substantive criminal law, and that these were duly decided in the judicial rulings. 168 Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. 169 Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 170 Article 2 of the American Convention. The Commission indicated that, after Scot Cochran had been sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment on August 17, 2004, a remedy of cassation was filed before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice which was declared “unfounded” on February 28, 2005. Subsequently, three review procedures were filed and these were also declared “unfounded.” The Commission also indicated that, in the ruling of February 28, 2005, the Third Chamber re-examined the way in which the court a quo had assessed the body of evidence in the case and agreed with the trial court as regards the certainty of the presence of Scot Cochran in the country at the time of the facts; it also placed value on the existence of documentary and audiovisual evidence that proved the existence of the wrongful act. The Commission stressed that, in the judgment of August 17, 2004, the Third Chamber also exercised control of the way in which the trial court had interpreted and applied the substantive criminal law. Specifically, it ruled out that, in the case of Scot Cochran, there had been a concurso ideal of crimes, because there was a clear temporal individualization between the acts for which the petitioner had been sentenced that made them objectively different. It also indicated that, as a result of the reform of the Costa Rican appeals system, individuals whose sentence was res judicata, including Scot Cochran, were able to file a special appeal for review. It indicated that, in rulings of November 30, 2010, and February 15, 2013, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had decided all the grounds for annulment filed by the petitioner and, to that end, on both occasions, it had made its own analysis of the judgment, and set out the reasons why its annulment was not in order. Therefore, it did not reject Scot Cochran’s arguments in limine; rather, it examined the main issues that were in dispute in the proceedings and made its own analysis of them. 171 37