(CAI) La Reforma. Regarding access to medical assistance or health care, it held that the alleged victims did not file the appropriate remedies at the time when the situations that merited it apparently arose, but two or even three years after the time when they submitted the petition. In addition, it pointed out that it was only in 2012, after the issuance of the Admissibility Report, that Rafael Rojas filed claims in relation to access to drinking water in the CAI La Reforma, which would be “outside the scope of the litigation determined in said Report.” In relation to the alleged acts of torture, it argued that there is no evidence that the alleged victims had pursued remedies regarding their specific cases at the time the State became aware of the petitions. In this regard, the State argued that one of the appropriate remedies is that of amparo and, in addition, the national system has procedures for execution of the sentence, which, at the time the Commission transferred the petitions to the State, had not been exhausted by the alleged victims. 33. The Commission requested that the preliminary objection be declared inadmissible. On the one hand, it pointed out that the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies was filed at the appropriate time by the State during the admissibility stage, and was the subject of a ruling in the Admissibility Report. In that report, the Commission decided that it would analyze at the merits stage whether the domestic legislation offered the alleged victims a suitable remedy for the protection of their right to a comprehensive review of their respective convictions and considered the objection established in Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention applicable with respect to the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h). 24 This decision was confirmed in its Merits Report, which established that neither the appeal in cassation nor the review procedure complied with the requirements of Article 8(2)(h). In relation to the State’s allegations of failure to exhaust domestic remedies to challenge the conditions of detention, it recalled that in its Admissibility Report it took into account the remedies filed. 25 In its final written observations, it reiterated that the domestic remedies created after the admissibility decision and their eventual effects on a case, is an aspect that cannot be analyzed in a preliminary manner, but corresponds to the analysis of the merits. 34. The Factum Consorcio representatives argued that, in the case of Jorge Martínez Meléndez, all domestic remedies were exhausted; however, neither the appeal for cassation nor the motion of review allowed for a full review of the judgment. They explained that although transitory provision I of Law 8503 allowed the filing of a motion for review on the grounds of having encountered limitations in cassation, Article 411 of the reformed Code of Criminal Procedure indicated that it was inadmissible to raise, by way of a review, matters that had already been discussed and resolved in cassation. Likewise, transitory provision III of Law 8837 and Articles 408, 410 and 411 of the reformed Code of Criminal Procedure meant that the motion for review did not constitute an expeditious, adequate and effective remedy for the comprehensive review of the facts and evidence, in addition to which it implied the existence of a final conviction, at which point a person is neither considered innocent nor treated as such, contrary to what is implied by the right to appeal the judgment. In turn, they argued that although transitory provision III of Law 8837 established the possibility of converting petitions for writs of cassation that were pending as of December 2010 into a motion for appeal, the fact is that in decision No. 2012-00588 of March 30, 2012, the Cassation Chamber denied Jorge Martínez the possibility of such conversion in relation to his 24 During the hearing on preliminary objections, it held that the Admissibility Report determined that the remedies mentioned by the State as being available to the victims, prima facie do not meet the requirements of suitability and effectiveness in respect of the alleged violation: first, because the writ of cassation, prior to the reforms of 2006 and 2010, was declared contrary to the Convention by the Court; second, because the special motion for review is only applicable to the final judgment and in specific circumstances, and third, because the motion of appeal created does not apply to the victims in this case. 25 The Report notes that “some petitioners have filed judicial and/or administrative actions on particular situations such as medical care or food, and have thus brought the alleged situation to the attention of the prison authorities.” 15