10 international human rights court such as the Inter-American Court”. Additionally, among other considerations, the representatives pointed out that: (i) “the new criminal review law keeps the same instances which were disapproved by the Court in its Judgment, that is, first instance and review by a higher court. However, the second instance is intended to be less formal and restricted than the typical review proceedings, which distinguished them from an appeal to a higher court pursuant to Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention”. Thus, the Law Extending Review Proceedings “relaxes the requirements for admission of a motion for review; vests the Review Court with powers to carry out a more comprehensive review of a lower court's decision; provides an opportunity, albeit limited, to offer and receive evidence upon review; and increases the number of members of the Criminal Review Court. Additionally, temporary provision I provides an opportunity for the review of previous cases in which a motion for review by a higher court on grounds of error has been rejected on the basis of the former legislation repealed by the statutory reform in question. Doubtless, these are positive aspects aimed at curing the insufficiency of the motion for review to satisfy the requirements of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention"; (ii) however, “it cannot be overlooked that the reform represents a sort of compromise between the system criticized in the Court's Judgment (i.e., one instance with review proceedings limited to classical review proceedings) and the clearer system consisting of two-instance proceedings for the full examination of the case plus one review instance. Such compromise [...] does not seem to make up for the inobservance of the Costa Rican criminal procedure system of the Convention […]. Indeed, the aforementioned enactment does not suffice to comply with the Court’s Judgment […]. Not only does the newly enacted legislation maintain the same review structure, but also, owing to the very nature of the motion for review on the grounds of error, the system remains unchanged inasmuch as it provides for a review of the judgment rather than a full review of the case actually allowing for an assessment of all the aspects involved in a conviction, including issues of fact as well as issues of law. The defects in the Costa Rican review system pointed out by the Court [are] not cured simply by admitting all motions for review, but by providing for legal and procedural mechanisms allowing for a full review of the judgment being challenged”; (iii) the “new law has not modified section 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which sets out the grounds upon which a motion for review may be granted". Such provision should have been modified "to provide for wider possibilities of obtaining review from a cassation court, or its content [should have been] modified so that it ceases to entertain a formalistic interpretation of the motion for review". The same might be predicated of section 449 bis of the Law Extending Criminal Review; even though it true that such provision provides greater possibilities for offering evidence, "it provides that the Cassation Court must evaluate the manner in which the trial court judges assessed the evidence and justified their decision, which confirms the supervisory role of the higher court rather than vesting it with the power to carry out 'a full and comprehensive review of all the issues presented to the lower court' pursuant to the Judgment";