30 m) Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser has not been denied his freedom of expression and thought, and no definitive verdict against him has been delivered. The April 3, 2001 court order being contested here is a simple procedural decision. Indeed, procedurally speaking, he never had need of a court of second instance and cannot claim violation of the principle of presumption of innocence or violation of his right to a hearing by a competent and impartial judge; and n) based on these considerations, the State argued that Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention was applicable and, accordingly, asked the Court to admit the preliminary objection asserting failure to exhaust local remedies. Pleadings of the Commission 77. Concerning the State’s preliminary objection claiming failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to reject each and every one of Costa Rica’s arguments on the grounds that: a) The only remedies that need be exhausted are those appropriate for correcting the violations allegedly committed. In cases such as the present case, in which a conviction was challenged through the ordinary remedies available within Costa Rica’s criminal law system, the avenue that Mr. Herrera Ulloa opted for was the proper one; b) the State failed to show that the remedy challenging constitutionality is, or could have been, an effective and adequate remedy for resolving the present case; c) the State alleged that the action challenging constitutionality “is the principal means to have a provision that violates fundamental rights declared inapplicable;” yet the main ground for the petition is not the existence of the law applied, but rather the penalty imposed upon the alleged victims in the November 12, 1999 court ruling and the February 21, 2000 order for enforcement of judgment; d) the State is confusing the object of the petition filed with the Commission with the object of the case brought to the Court. The object of the present case is the criminal sanction imposed on Mr. Herrera Ulloa and the court’s demand of Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. “Therefore, with the final ruling delivered by the Supreme Court [...] the suitable and effective remedies have been exhausted;” e) Review can only be requested when the right of due process or the right of defense during trial has been violated; this case, however, is “against” the criminal conviction, because the criminal penalty it establishes is incompatible with articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. No violation of due process is being claimed; in other words, no violation of articles 8 and 25 of the Convention is being alleged. The remedy of review could not have been used to challenge the conviction on the grounds that it was contrary to Article 13 of the Convention; this argument alone is sufficient to dismiss the preliminary objection;