the principle of objectivity (the same judge would not intervene at two different times in a case), and allow those courts to evaluate evidence as to the facts. 50. The State indicates that subsequently, with the passage of Law 8.503, on June 6, 2006, which was preceded by thinking in jurisprudence that developed the so-called principle of “opening up the proceedings”, the appeals procedure was changed in order to avoid procedural formalisms and thus reduce possible causes of inadmissibility.It notes that the law also provided for the possibility that all convicted persons whose appeals cases would not have allowed for a comprehensive examination of the judgment could file a request for review of their sentence56. It notes that Law 8503: a) Makes the appeals process less formal (casación), in terms of admissibility requirements and other formalisms and rituals traditional to the appeals process; b) “violation of due process or right to a defense” may be alleged; c) orders a broad examination and evaluation of the proceedings in the case, via examination of the acts and records of the hearing to establish the grounds for the parties’ claims; d) the Appeals Court (casación) may order that the oral evidence be reheard, and is authorized to make a direct evaluation of the documentary evidence; e) authorizes the building of evidence to show how the trial records were kept; introduction of evidence in the accused’s favor, and the court is authorized ex officio to introduce evidence when it deems it pertinent and useful to resolution of the case; evidence is admitted concerning a previously unknown fact, or new facts; f) it makes the review procedure less formal; and establishes that it can be use when the appeal (casación) failed on the grounds of admissibility based on the regulations that were in effect prior to Law 8503. 51. It states that these norms were the mechanism for protecting the judicial guarantee in Article 8 (2)(h) of the Convention in cases where there was a final judgment, prior to giving effect in Costa Rica’s the domestic legal system in attendance with the Inter-American Court’s decision in its judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa. 52. It specifies that the adjustments and changes made by Law No 8.503 involve a number of “misalignments or imperfections” in the criminal appeals system and in the judicial structure responsible for applying it; while these do not imply that the right to appeal the verdict to a higher court or judge was adversely affected, they did require structural reforms to address them. It adds that Law 8.837, “Creation of an Appeals Procedure, other Reforms to the Appeals System, and implementation of new rules on oral proceedings in criminal cases”, published on July 9, 2010, which will come into force on December 10, 2011-, will reinforce the protection of the fundamental rights and guarantees of the American Convention, since what is sought is uniformity in the system to assure the principle of legal certainty 57.It notes that given the date of its entry into force, the petitioners’ allegations may not reflect injury and therefore do not entail a violation of Article 8 (2) (h) of the Convention. 53. The State adds that in accordance with Transitory Provision III of Law 8.837, the alleged victims may file, for one time only, for a review of their judgment, within six months following the law’s entry into force58. It also contends that the alleged infraction of the judicial guarantees in Article 8 (2) (h) may not be presumed to be iuris tantum in all criminal cases in which judgment was passed prior to Law 8.837, but rather that in each particular case, it must be determined in which specific matters the right to comprehensive review of the decision may have been violated. 56 Transitory provision I of the Law on Criminal Appeals. The State indicates that this transitional provision is the procedural mechanism whereby persons convicted prior to the reform introduced by that law are guaranteed the possibility that the judgment against them may be reviewed, even if it is substantively res judicata, for the purpose of remedying an infraction of the judicial guarantee set forth in Article 8.2 (h) of the Convention, as a result of the formalisms that used to characterize the appeals proceedings. 57 The State indicates that protection of due process will be guaranteed when an ordinary procedure exists to appeal the judgment, and that there is also the possibility of alleging violation of due process and the right of defense by filing an appeal. It states that this is importance, since the review of the judgment, if admissible on that matter, would be resolved prior to its becoming res judicata. 58 The State says that in the said review procedure, neither generic allegations nor repetition of claims previously heard in appeals or review procedures will be admissible, unless they were denied because of rigid, formalistic or unjustified restrictions on a comprehensive review of the decision that should have been performed by the higher court in order to decide on the disagreements raised by the party, and on evaluation ofabsolute defects, which, under the new law, the higher court may rule on ex officio. 12