cases, the higher court made an analysis that went beyond matters that were strictly juridical and that, to the contrary, involved an examination that compared the body of evidence in the case to the assessment made, and the legal consequences derived from it by the lower court. In this regard, the Court notes that these are recent judgments from 2009, 2012 and 2013. The Court notes that the representatives called attention to the existence of other domestic rulings in which the scope of the above-mentioned grounds for annulment is restrictive on this point and affirmed that it was impossible to analyze matters relating to the establishment of the facts in the oral trial. These decisions date from 2010, 2011 and 2012. In these judgments, an interpretation was made that reduced the scope of the review to questions that were, above all, related to the appropriate application of the rules of evidentiary law. 297. The Court considers that the elements provided are not sufficient to conclude that the grounds under article 374.e) of the Criminal Procedural Code do not comply with the standard of an effective remedy guaranteed in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention as regards the possibility of contesting factual matters by means of arguments relating to the lower court’s assessment of the evidence. Taking into account that there is an interrelationship between the factual, evidentiary and legal dimensions of the criminal judgment (supra para. 270.d), the Court considers that, since it is not a conclusion that can be derived from the text of the said grounds, it has not been proved that, based on these grounds, it is not possible to contest matters relating to the factual framework of the judgment by examining the assessment of the evidence in it. Therefore, the Court concludes that, in the instant case, the State did not violate the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, established in Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to the right to appeal the judgment established in Article 8(2)(h) of this instrument, to the detriment of the eight presumed victims in this case. 298. Nevertheless, the Court insists that the interpretation that the domestic courts make of the said grounds must ensure that the content and criteria developed by this Court regarding the right to appeal the judgment are guaranteed (supra para. 270). The Court reiterates that the grounds for the admissibility of the appeal ensured by Article 8(2)(h)) of the Convention must make it possible to contest matters that have an impact on the factual aspect of the guilty verdict, because the appeal should allow an extensive control of the contested aspects, and this calls for the possibility of analyzing the factual, evidentiary and legal issues on which the guilty verdict is based. VII.3 – RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (ARTICLES 7(1), 7(3), 7(5) AND 8(2)313 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 299. The Commission did not refer to this matter. 300. The FIDH alleged the violation of the right to personal liberty of Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Pichún Paillalao, Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, José Huenchunao Mariñán and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, referring jointly to the arbitrary nature of the pre-trial detention, the violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time or released, and the violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. It indicated that the fact that they were “incarcerated for more than a year, because they were considered a danger to the security of society, constitutes arbitrary imprisonment” and that “[t]he proceedings do not include a decision referring to the danger to the investigation or the danger of flight of the accused.” complete text of these decisions was not provided, but rather citations from parts of them; thus they will be assessed with all the evidence before the Court. 313 The pertinent provisions of the American Convention are transcribed infra para. 307. 103