29 and that was used to convict Mr. Herrera Ulloa, to determine whether it was contrary to Article 13 of the Convention; e) Mr. Herrera Ulloa had legal standing to use the action challenging constitutionality as a remedy by which to combat the alleged violation of his basic rights; f) the alleged victims and their attorney filed a writ of cassation with the Third Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court, although they “at least foresaw” that a conviction might have been a violation of articles of the Constitution and of the American Convention and that the procedure required to challenge constitutionality in a case not yet decided would have been a “motion”, not a legal action filed with the Supreme Court; g) under Article 408.g of Costa Rica’s Penal Code, the remedy of review may be used to review convictions that have become final but were not delivered in accordance with the rules of due process; h) if a judgment has become final and there has been, as the representatives of the alleged victims claim, a violation of due process, then the basic conditions for filing an appeal for review have been met; yet this domestic remedy was not exhausted; i) although an appeal seeking review of a final verdict has traditionally been regarded as an extraordinary remedy, in the Costa Rican legal system it is permissible when violations of due process are being claimed. It thus becomes an effective and adequate means to resolve violations of this type, which the alleged victims should have exhausted before turning to the Court. Its efficacy can be attributed to its informality, to the procedure through which the appeal is processed, to its legal effects and to the fact that “evidence can be offered orally, in a hearing held for that very purpose;” j) under Costa Rican law, a court taking cognizance of an appeal for review of a criminal case must, before deciding the appeal, consult the Constitutional Chamber as to the content, preconditions and scope of the principles or rights alleged to have been violated. This is a “true guarantee” for anyone who files an appeal for review, because any ruling delivered by Costa Rica’s highest and only constitutional court “as regards the rights and principles alleged to have been violated, is binding;” k) if the appeals court decides to vacate a lower court judgment, the case must be sent back for retrial if the appellate court does not have sufficient material to decide the case; if it does have that information, the appellate court can decide the case once and for all; l) the April 3, 2001 decision ordering enforcement of the conviction in all its parts could potentially have endangered Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser’s freedom of movement or personal liberty, in which case the petition of habeas corpus would have been the proper procedural remedy to protect that freedom of movement. As Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser did not avail himself of this procedural remedy that the Costa Rican judicial system affords, he did not exhaust domestic remedies;