C. Alleged lack of impartiality of Judge Javier Llobet who tried Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7) 163. The State pointed out that the facts concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge Javier Llobet, who, according to the representatives, had ruled on the precautionary measure to extend Miguel Mora Calvo’s pretrial detention and subsequently formed part of the court of appeal that sentenced him, “are not even part of the [Commission’s Merits] Report.” 164. Neither the Commission nor the SIPDH representatives of Mr. Mora Calvo referred to this point. 165. This Court confirms that in paragraph 159 of its Merits Report, the Commission referred to the alleged lack of impartiality of one of the members of the court that tried Miguel Mora Calvo. 197 Therefore, this Court considers that the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge Llobet does indeed form part of the factual framework of this case. VII PROVEN FACTS 166. The Court will now outline the relevant rules of the Costa Rican appeals system, applicable to Groups 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the alleged victims. Subsequently, it will describe the criminal proceedings and remedies filed by the alleged victims of these groups, which will be then analyzed by the Court, all in accordance with the provisions set forth in Chapter IV of this judgment on the preliminary objections filed by the State. A. Relevant regulatory framework A.1. Code of Criminal Procedure 1996 (CCP of 1996 - Law No. 7594) 167. On December 10, 1996, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) was enacted under Law No. 7594, which came into force on January 1, 1998. 198 This law established that a petition for a writ of cassation (recurso de casación) 199 could be filed to reverse a conviction in a criminal proceeding. In addition, under Article 408, subparagraph g), 200 the motion for review could be filed when the sentence had not been issued through due process of law or Cf. Merits Report No. 33/14 of April 4, 2014 (merits file, folio 46). Cf. Law No. 7594 published in La Gaceta on June 4, 1996 and in force since January 1, 1998. Original version available at: http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_text_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1= 1&nValor2=41297&nValor3=43524&strTipM=TC the previous Code was the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. 199 Cf. Law No. 7594, original version, Article 443: “The petition for a writ of reversal on cassation (recurso de casación) shall be admissible when the decision failed to observe or erroneously applied a legal precept. When the legal precept that is being claimed as unobserved or erroneously applied constitutes a procedural defect or flaw, the petition for cassation shall only be admissible if the interested party has filed a timely motion to rectify it or has sworn to petition for a writ of reversal on cassation, except in instances of absolute defects and those occurring subsequent to the closure of oral trial arguments”. Likewise, Article 445 established that “[t]he petition for a writ of reversal on cassation shall be filed before the court that issued the decision, within fifteen days from notification, stating clearly the legal provisions that it failed to observe or erroneously applied and setting forth its claim. Each reason and its grounds shall be stated separately. No other grounds may be raised outside this opportunity”. In addition, Article 369 established the flaws or defects of a judgment that justify cassation. 200 Cf. Law No. 7594, original version, Article 408 established: “The review shall be applicable against final sentences and in favor of the convicted person or the person on whom a security and correction measure has been imposed, in the following cases: g) When the sentence has not been issued through due process or opportunity for defense. The review shall be applicable even in cases in which the sentence or security measure has been executed or has expired. 197 198 55