domestic law to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights recognized therein. This obligation implies the adoption of measures of two kinds. On the one hand, the elimination of norms and practices of any nature that involve the violation of the guarantees set forth in the Convention; on the other hand, the issuance of laws and the implementation of practices conducive to the effective observance of said guarantees. 359 260. However, this Court is aware that, since the 1990s, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had referred to the right to appeal a judicial decision established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, indicating that this was a “parameter of constitutionality.” In particular, in several rulings such as, for example, judgments 282-90 of March 13, 1990; 360 719-90 of June 26, 1990; 361 1998-00440 of January 27, 1998; 362 2004-14715 of December 22, 2004; 363 2005-03619 of April 5, 2005; 364 1185-95 of March 2, 1995; and 1739-1992 of July 1, 1992, with erga omnes effects for the ordinary courts, 365 the Constitutional Chamber accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 359 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 26, para. 293. 360 Case 210-90, Judgments 282-90 of March 13, 1990 (evidence file, folios 42046 to 42049). In that judgment, the Constitutional Chamber states that: “this is a case of immediate application of the treaty, because Costa Rica has both the organ and the procedure for appealing the judgments in question, since the [...CCP] generally admits the appeal in cassation in favor of the accused against the conviction, only restricting it to cases of [low criminality...]. Therefore, [...] in order to comply with [Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention], it is sufficient to disregard the aforementioned limitations, and to understand that the remedy of cassation referred to therein is legally granted in favor of the defendant, sentenced to any penalty in a judgment handed down in a criminal case for a crime. [In accordance with Article [8(2)(h) of the Convention], the appeal is declared admissible and the immediate release of the protected persons is ordered until the case is resolved by a final judgment, once they have been granted the opportunity to appeal the judgment in cassation […]”. 361 Cf. Case 10-90, Judgment 719-90 of June 26, 1990 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folios 42050 to 42053). In that decision the Constitutional Chamber states: “Regarding this last point, the Chamber considers that the appeal in cassation satisfies the requirements of the Convention, as long as it is not regulated, interpreted or applied with formalistic rigor, but rather allows, with relative simplicity, the court of cassation to examine the validity of the appealed judgment, in general, as well as the respect due to the fundamental rights of the accused, especially the rights of defense and due process.” 362 Judgment 1998-00440 of January 27, 1998, of the Constitutional Chamber (evidence file, folio 42132). 363 This judgment is cited in the 2006-0052 of January 6, 2006 (evidence file, folios 20640 to 20644), but is also publicly available, in full, in the Costa Rican Legal Information System, at: http://jurisprudence.poderjudicial.go.cr/SCIJ_PJ/busqueda/jurisprudence/jur_Document.aspx?param1=Ficha_Judgment&param2=1&nValo r1=1&nValor2=305753&tem1=&param7=&strTipM=T&lResultado=1. In this decision it indicates that: “The right to appeal the judgment referred to in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention [...] is a right exclusively of the accused in any criminal case involving a crime; b) this right to appeal the judgment consists of the possibility for a higher court to correct serious errors in the trial, and is satisfied with the extraordinary remedy of cassation, provided that it is not regulated, interpreted or applied with formalistic criteria […].” 364 This judgment is cited in the 2006-0052 of January 6, 2006 (evidence file, folios 20640 to 20644), but is also published and available in full in the Costa Rican Legal Information System at: http://jurisprudencia.poderjudicial.go.cr/SCIJ_PJ/busqueda/jurisprudencia/jur_Documento.aspx?param1=Ficha_Sentencia&param2=1&nVa lor1=1&nValor2=307236&tem1=&param7=&strTipM=T&lResultado=1. In that decision the Constitutional Chamber states: […] in order to comply with [...] Article 8. 2(h) of the American Convention, it is sufficient to consider the aforementioned limitations as not having been imposed, and to understand that the remedy of cassation [...] is legally granted in favor of the defendant, sentenced to any penalty in a judgment handed down in a criminal case for an offense [...]. the Chamber considers that the remedy of cassation satisfies the requirements of the Convention, insofar as it is not regulated, interpreted or applied with formalistic rigor but rather allows the court of cassation to examine, with relative simplicity, to examine the validity of the appealed judgment in general, as well as the respect due to the fundamental rights of the accused, especially the rights of defense and due process.” 365 Pursuant to Article 13 of Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction which states that: “The jurisprudence and precedents of the constitutional jurisdiction are binding erga omnes, except for itself;” as well as Article 107 for the case of consultation proceedings, which provides that “the decision of the Chamber shall be communicated to the consulting court, the Attorney General of the Republic and the parties appearing before it, shall have the same effects and shall be published in the same manner as the judgment issued in the unconstitutionality action, except that it shall not preclude the filing of the latter in the same proceeding, if applicable.” 81