299. The Commission and the representative argued that the legal framework regulating the appeal in cassation, at both the national level and in the province of Mendoza, restricts the reviewing bodies and, therefore, does not comply with the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. Both recognized the relevance of the “Casal” judgment mentioned by the State (supra para. 239 and infra para. 300) in relation to appeals. However, the Commission indicated that this ruling “has not led to sufficient change,” because it was not mandatory for judges, and the interpretative standard that can be inferred from it was not “evident from the text of the norm.” Also, the representative indicated that the State had still not amended the law that prevents a broad review of sentences. 300. The State referred to the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation according to which “it is only possible to decide an appeal in cassation appropriately to the extent that the full revision of the sentence is guaranteed.” Therefore, the State considered that the existing normative system was adequate under the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. B.2. Considerations of the Court 301. The Court has already referred to the obligations imposed on States by Article 2 of the American Convention (supra paras. 290 to 303). Furthermore, in this Judgment, the Court has established that the appeals in cassation filed on behalf of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Ricardo David Videla Fernández, César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, based on articles 474 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Mendoza and 456 of the national Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively, were rejected because they sought a review of issues of fact and evidence, including the imposing of sentences of life imprisonment and reclusion for life, that, pursuant to the abovementioned provisions were not admissible. The Court has also decided that, based on the literal wording of the relevant norms, it is not possible for a higher court to review matters of fact and/or evidence by means of the appeal in cassation (supra para. 253). Therefore, the Court found that the State had violated the right recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the said victims. 302. The Court observes that the State did not contest that the national Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Mendoza regulate the remedy of cassation in a very restricted sense and contrary to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. Instead, the State argued that this point was resolved with the well-known “Casal judgment” delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (supra para. 254). While recognizing the importance of this ruling, the Court notes that the pertinent procedural provisions in both codes that contradict this ruling remain in force. 303. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 8(2)(h) and 19 thereof, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Ricardo David Videla Fernández and Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal. XIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 96