124. From the transcribed regulations it can be deduced that the cassation remedy, like the special appeal remedy, does not allow the review of facts or evidence, only of law. 125. The Court recalls that Mr. Valenzuela was sentenced on October 21, 1999, by the Sentencing Court of the Department of Quetzaltenango (supra para. 76). On November 3, 1999, Mr. Valenzuela's defense attorney filed a special appeal for reasons of form and substance based on Articles 415 and 419 of the Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting the annulment of the judgment and contested procedural act, the which was submitted to the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals (supra para. 77).108 The defense based the appeal on the lack of adequate reasoning, given "that the judgment has proven a decisive fact to aggravate the sentence, without such fact having been proven in the sentencing court", therefore it requested the annulment of the contested judgment, modifying it in the sense that instead of the death penalty, the maximum prison sentence would be imposed because it had not been proven that the accused individual was a danger to society. 126. On August 7, 2000, the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals declared the special appeal to be inadmissible due to reasons of form and substance and limited itself to reiterating some of the reasons forming the basis on which the Sentencing Court Department of Quetzaltenango concluded Mr. Valenzuela's guilt, but without making any assessment as to whether said assessment had been adequately carried out. It did not conduct any type of review on the facts or evidence. Consequently, this Court considers that the refusal by the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals to review the merits of the issue raised by Mr. Valenzuela's defense counsel, as well as the factual issues raised, constituted, internationally, a wrongful act insofar as it resulted in a breach of the duty of comprehensive review of the ruling established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. B.3. Conclusion 127. Consequently, the Court considers that the State violated Articles 8(2) and 8(2)(g) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. 128. In addition, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Valenzuela. B.4. Criminal proceedings regarding the death of Mr. Valenzuela 129. The Court will rule on the investigation of the events occurring in relation to Mr. Valenzuela’s death, firstly, related to the alleged lack of due diligence in the investigation within a reasonable period of time and, secondly, regarding the lack of investigation of the alleged acts of torture and sexual abuse suffered by Mr. Valenzuela. The Court will not refer Mr. Valenzuela alleged as basis of his appeal (i) reason: failure to observe and erroneous application of the law. Violation of the principle of immediacy; (ii) reason: non-compliance and erroneous application of the Law: Lack of substantiation, because the motivation is not complete because the Court failed to fully and completely assess the evidence legally introduced to the debate; (iii) reason: non-observance and erroneous application of the law. Illegality of obtaining the means of proof, due to the fact that the Court did not observe the norms estimated to have been violated and at the same time applied them erroneously, when basing its decision on the means of evidence obtained illegally and therefore inadmissible for its assessment; (iv) reason: non-observance and erroneous application of the law. Defects of the Sentence; The Sentencing Court, at the time of sentencing, failed to record the express and precise decisions, in relation to the name of the accused […]; (v) reason: non-observance and erroneous application of the Law. Violation of the rules of healthy reasoned critique in the evaluation of the evidence. Cf. Special Appeal, supra. 108 33