133. In the instant case, the Court notes that in paragraphs 155 to 161 of the Merits Report, under chapter “IV. Proven Facts”, the Commission identified the appeals filed by Mr. Mora Calvo against the judgments that convicted him in two different criminal cases, without mentioning any cassation appeal filed in his favor. Likewise, in chapter “V. Legal Analysis” of the Merits Report, the Commission specified in footnote No. 334 that, “all the alleged victims in this case filed at least one cassation appeal, with the exception of Miguel Mora Calvo. Accordingly, the Commission will not examine the situation of this individual.” However, in paragraphs 215 and 269(1) of the Merits Report, the Commission declared Mr. Mora to be a victim of the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. In this regard, the Commission argued before this Court that the inclusion of Mr. Mora as a victim under said article was a material error. 134. In a different sense, in paragraph 35 of the Admissibility Report, under chapter “III. Position of the Parties,” when referring to the petition of Miguel Mora Calvo, the Commission indicated that with respect to judgment No. 736-98, the petitioner filed an appeal for cassation and motions for review. 168 On this point, the Court found that two criminal cases were brought against Miguel Mora Calvo. In the first, judgment N°736-98 was issued on September 24, 1998, against which an appeal in cassation was filed, which was declared inadmissible on May 28, 1999, in Decision N° 0649-99; 169 in addition, several motions for review were filed. 170 In the second case, judgment N° 632-2000 was issued on December 5, 2000, 171 and no cassation appeal was filed against said ruling; however, a motion for review of the proceeding was filed. 172 135. In this regard, the Court considers that the Commission’s material error should not be interpreted to the detriment of the petitioner, since in the Admissibility Report the Commission had already noted the alleged existence of the cassation appeal filed against judgment N° 736-98 of September 24, 1998, which was in fact the case. Consequently, the Court will hear the factual and legal arguments of the common interveners SIPDH related to the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victim Miguel Mora Calvo. V EVIDENCE A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 136. The Court received various documents submitted by the State, the Commission and the common interveners, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 4 to 6). Likewise, the Court received several statements rendered by affidavit. 173 In addition, the Commission, the Cf. Admissibility Report No. 105/11, paras. 33, 34 and 35 (evidence file, folios 18254 and 18255). Cf. Decision N° 0649-99 of May 28, 1999 (evidence file, folio 35469 al 35474). 170 Five motions for review were filed which were settled through the following decisions: Decision N° 200000917 of August 11, 2000 (evidence file, folio 35475 to 35478); Decision N° 2007-00546 of October 5, 2007 (evidence file, folios 35479 to 35481); Decision N° 2008-00236 of May 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 35482 to 35484); Decision 2008-00557 of November 25, 2008 (evidence file, folio 35485 to 35488); and Decision N° 200900225 of June 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 35489 to 35491). 171 Cf. Judgment No. 632-2000 of December 5, 2000 (evidence file, folio 35622 to 35750. 172 Cf. Decision N° 2009-01158 of September 16, 2009 (evidence file, folio 35611 to 35621). 173 The following persons made statements before a notary public: a) petitioners proposed by SIPDH: i) Damas Vega Atencio, ii) Miguel Ángel Mora Calvo, and iii) Carlos Osborne Escalante; b) proposed by Adrián Martínez Blanco: iv) Jorge Martínez Meléndez; c) proposed by the Inter-American Public Defenders: v) Martín Rojas Hernández, vi) Manuel Hernández Quesada, and vii) Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal. d) witness proposed by SIPDH: i) Roger Víquez Guiraud; e) witness proposed by Adrián Martínez Blanco, ii) José Martínez Meléndez; f) witness proposed by AIDEF, iii) Carlos Alberto Céspedes León, iv) Rosaura Chinchilla Calderón, v) Roy Murillo Rodríguez, vi) Marta Iris Muñoz Cascante; g) Witness offered by the State vii) Tricia Castillo Vetrano; h) Declarants 168 169 47