22. The Commission considered this objection to be inadmissible, since the case involves alleged victims, facts and analysis of rights different from those in the Herrera Ulloa case. In addition, it explained that, contrary to the State’s claim, the order on Monitoring Compliance with Judgment of November 22, 2010, did not state that the adoption of Law No. 8837 rectifies possible violations of the right to appeal judgments that took place prior to its entry into force. In this regard, it explained that the alleged victims were convicted prior to the enactment of said law and could not have access to the remedy of appeal created by it, pursuant to its transitory provision. Consequently, it was necessary to evaluate its execution, so that issues related to its implementation and its concrete effects on the alleged victims in the case would be a matter of merits and not of a preliminary nature. 23. The Factum Consorcio representatives explained that the State reforms did not guarantee the alleged victim Jorge Martínez Meléndez the possibility of a comprehensive review of his case or his right to challenge the criminal sentence imposed on him, consisting of two cumulative prison sentences. Likewise, regarding his second conviction, which was not final as of December 2010, transitory provision III of Law 8837 provided a period of two months to convert the writ of cassation into an appeal, and that such act had to be authorized by the Third Chamber. However, the decision issued on March 30, 2012, by Judge Rafael Ángel Sanabria Rojas of the Third Chamber of Criminal Cassation of Costa Rica, expressly denied Jorge Martínez Meléndez the conversion of his pending motion for reversal on cassation into an appeal. Consequently, the remedy provided by the State in Law 8837 did not comply with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, and with respect to the cases of persons with convictions prior to the enactment of that law, there is no res judicata. Finally, they pointed out that the legal basis for Mr. Martínez’s case is not only the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, but also other alleged violations of rights contained therein on which res judicata is not even alleged. 24. The Inter-American Defenders argued that the objection of res judicata does not apply, since it does not comply with the principle of double identity of persons and facts. Indeed, in the instant case, the violation of several rights other than the right of appeal is alleged, as well as the inadequate application of other laws or rules that did not exist when the Herrera Ulloa judgment was handed down in 2004. They also stated that this case offers an opportunity to broaden the standards regarding the right of appeal, oral proceedings, due process and an impartial judge, as well as the State’s obligations with respect to persons deprived of liberty, such as physical integrity, life, access to drinking water and adequate food. 25. The common interveners SIPDH argued, first, that the State did not initially allege the preliminary objection of international res judicata during the proceedings before the Commission, and therefore, by virtue of estoppel, its right to allege it was precluded. Secondly, they argued that the Herrera Ulloa and Amrhein cases do not share the same purpose, cause and subject. Third, they noted that the criminal procedural reforms that improved the criminal challenge system with the creation of the appeal and the appeal courts “[did] not favor any of the petitioning victims in this case, since none of the transitory provisions [of] those reforms allowed them to exercise the new remedy of appeal,” maintaining them at a disadvantage and under procedural discrimination. Fourth, that the alleged victims are persons with final convictions due to the lack of an ordinary comprehensive remedy in criminal matters. In this sense, no extraordinary remedy, such as the motion for review, which must await the final criminal judgment, can be consistent with the provisions of the American Convention, due process or with the scope of Article 8(2)(h) of said treaty. A.2 Considerations of the Court 12