167. In the instant case, the writs of cassation filed to challenge the November 12, 1999 conviction did not satisfy the requirement of a liberal remedy that would permit the higher court to do a thorough analysis or examination of all the issues debated and analyzed in the lower court. Thus, the writs of cassation filed by Messrs. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser and Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, and by the latter’s defense attorney and the special counsel for the newspaper “La Nación”, respectively (supra para. 95. w), to challenge the conviction did not meet the requirements of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention; the review allowed with those remedies was limited, not thorough and comprehensive. 168. The Court therefore finds that the State violated Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention in combination with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa. 128. Thus, it does not follow from the judgment in the Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica case that the Court has determined a lack of due process of law for the protection of the right to appeal the judgment. Furthermore, this Court has found that since the 1990s, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in various rulings with erga omnes effects alluded to the right to appeal, excluding formalities that would prevent the review of a conviction, in order to satisfy the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention (infra para. 262). For this reason, Mr. Hernández Quesada’s petition should have been submitted within six months from the date of notification of the decision on the cassation appeal. In view of the foregoing, the Court declares admissible the preliminary objection raised by the State. G. Error in the Merits Report regarding Miguel Mora Calvo G.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 129. The State filed an objection “ratione personae,” alleging a “contradiction” and “error” by the Commission that generates a violation of its right of defense. It pointed out that Miguel Mora Calvo was left out of the analysis of the Merits Report regarding the right to appeal the judgment, but later the Commission included him among the alleged victims in in its conclusions on the case and specifically in connection with Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. 130. The Commission considered that the objection filed by the State did not refer to the lack of jurisdiction to analyze cases, but rather to the admissibility of individuals. It recalled that in its Merits Report it refrained from analyzing the alleged violation of the right established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Mora Calvo, because unlike the other alleged victims, he did not file at least one cassation appeal. Therefore, it clarified that his inclusion as a victim of the violation of that article was a material error; however, it did consider him as an alleged victim in relation to the presumed violation of the right to personal integrity. 131. The common interveners did not submit any observations in this regard. G.2. Considerations of the Court 132. First, the Court considers that the State’s argument on this occasion does not constitute a preliminary objection ratione personae, since it does not question the standing of the Commission to file the case or the capacity of Mr. Mora Calvo or his representatives to appear as parties to the proceedings in the case. Rather, the State’s objection arises from an alleged contradiction in the Merits Report regarding the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention to his detriment. If such a contradiction were indeed present, this would not prevent the Court from hearing the case with respect to this person and ruling on the alleged violation. 46