CCPR/C/112/D/2105/2011 the conviction and penalty imposed by the Provincial Court, quashing only the aggravating factor under article 250, paragraph 1, subparagraph 7 (Aggravation by exploitation of business credibility), of the Criminal Code. The authors provided the Committee with a copy of the judgement, in which the Supreme Court stated, inter alia, that the legality principle had not been breached, since the trials that led to the judgements of 4 February and 9 September 2004 had differed not only in terms of the identity of the parties but also in terms of the purpose of the trials. The criminal proceedings that had resulted in judgements in 2004 had dealt only with individual contracts. In the trial that had given rise to the Provincial Court judgement of 2008, however, the purpose had been to determine whether a continuing offence was being committed, which had involved a number of facts related to the authors’ commercial activity within the company that had not been reviewed in the acquittals of 2004. The right to a defence had not been infringed, as the evidence declared inadmissible by the Provincial Court had been submitted after the due date, and there had been no unexpected revelations or retractions rendering new evidence necessary. 2.6 Meanwhile, regarding the allegations that the body of evidence was insufficient and that an error had been committed in its evaluation, the Supreme Court found that it could evaluate all the evidence, examine whether it was sufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence and determine whether it had been evaluated rationally by the Provincial Court. Nevertheless, it was not, generally speaking, in a position to assess the credibility of subjective evidence, such as witness statements, police statements or plenary records of the court of first instance, since such assessments depended, to a great extent, on the direct perception of that court. The Supreme Court then took note of the witness statements and other elements of proof, found that the authors had not put forward evidence to support the conclusion that the Provincial Court’s interpretation of the facts was erroneous, and ruled that the involvement of the authors in the continuing offence of fraud had been demonstrated. 2.7 On 30 November 2009, the authors submitted an application for amparo before the Constitutional Court and alleged a violation of articles 24 (para. 1) (Right to an effective remedy) and 25 (ne bis in idem) of the State party’s Constitution. The authors alleged that the Provincial Court had assessed their criminal liability in relation to the company’s commercial activities three times; that the three trials should, in fact, have been merged into one, pursuant to article 17, paragraph 5, of the Criminal Procedure Act; that, during the criminal proceedings, they had not been allowed to submit documentary evidence; and that they had been convicted despite there not being sufficient proof. 2.8 In a ruling issued on 24 February 2010, the Constitutional Court decided not to admit the application for amparo on the grounds that the authors had not satisfied the requirement to demonstrate the constitutional relevance of the case, as established in article 49, paragraph 1, of Organic Act No. 6/2007 on the Constitutional Court, of 24 May. 2.9 The authors maintain that they have exhausted all domestic remedies as required to satisfy the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. The complaint 3.1 The authors maintain that they are victims of a violation of their right under article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, as they did not have access to an effective appeal against their conviction and the sentence imposed by Murcia Provincial Court. The sentence handed down by the Provincial Court could only be appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court. However, appeals to the Supreme Court are restricted in their scope, as it is not empowered to review the entire proceedings that gave rise to the Provincial Court’s judgement. Moreover, the Supreme Court itself stated that it could not examine the evidence brought before the court of first instance, such as witness evidence. 4 GE.14-20560