0647-TP; 49 and Group 4, Jorge Alberto Martínez Meléndez, in his two cases. 50 Thus, for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the filing of the special motion for review based on transitory provision I of this law is not required for these persons and in relation to these case files. Therefore, the State’s objection with respect to them is inadmissible. 55. Finally, the Court recalls that during the admissibility proceedings before the Commission the State informed it 51 of the publication on July 9, 2010 of Law No. 8837 entitled “Creation of an appeals procedure, other reforms to the appeals system and implementation of new rules on oral proceedings in criminal cases,” which would enter into force on December 10, 2011. The Commission issued its Admissibility Report on July 22, 2011, prior to the entry into force of said law, and therefore the filing of the special motion for review contemplated in transitory provision III of said law could not be required for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.2.2 Conclusion 56. Accordingly, the Court will not hear the following criminal cases: Group 1, Manfred Amrhein Pino et al., sole case file No. 94-001127-0202-PE (conviction for embezzlement); Group 2, Rafael Rojas, case file No. 099-0029291-042-PE (conviction for rape and sexual abuse); Group 5, Guillermo Rodríguez Silva and Martín Rojas Hernández, sole case file No. 04002096-042 (conviction for rape and sexual abuse); Group 7, Miguel Mora Calvo, case file No. 99-003994-0042-PE (conviction for possession, transportation and storage of drugs); and Group 8, Damas Vega Atencio, case files No. 99-000506-062-PE (conviction for two counts of attempted aggravated homicide and aggravated robbery) and No. 01-002231-0063-PE (conviction for aggravated robbery). Nor will it refer to the situation of the following persons in Group 3: Carlos Eduardo Yepes Cruz, Miguel Antonio Valverde Montoya and Fernando Saldarriaga Saldarriaga. 57. Accordingly, in the analysis of the merits of this case, the Court - unless other preliminary objections are successful - will only hear the criminal cases and take into account the allegations related to the following groups of alleged victims: Group 2, Rafael Rojas, cases No. 99-000136-065-PE (conviction for use of a false document) and No. 02-004656-0647-TP (conviction for embezzlement and use of a false document); Group 3, Enrique Archbold Jay and Luis Archbold Jay, case No. 02-000759-455-PE-2 (conviction for international drug transportation); Group 4, Jorge Martínez Meléndez, case No. 03-000082-016-TP (conviction for 12 counts of embezzlement in the form of a continuing offense) and No. 05-007495-0647TP (conviction for slanderous denunciation); Group 6, Manuel Hernández Quesada, case No. 01-203116-0305-PE (conviction for rape and sexual abuse); and Group 7, Miguel Mora Calvo, case No. 97-000061-301-PE (conviction for rape and sexual abuse). Cf. Decision No. 2012-00526 of March 22, 2012 (evidence file, folio 33695). Cf. Regarding the file of Jorge Alberto Martínez Meléndez No. 05-007495-0647-TP, he was convicted on August 3, 2010. He filed a writ of cassation, amended in accordance with Law 8503 of 2006. The Court does not have the exact date on which the appeal was filed, but it had to have been filed within 15 days of notification of the conviction judgment, in August 2010, pursuant to Article 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, available at: www.wipo.int/edocs/leyes/es/cr/cr090es.pdf On June 14, 2013, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, decided the writs of cassation filed by José Martínez Meléndez, his defense counsel and Jorge Martínez Meléndez against judgment No. 2013-00744 of August 3, 2010, for the offense of libelous denunciation and actual libel (evidence file, folio 25948). 51 Cf. Report of October 30, 2010 of Costa Rica before the Commission in the Petition No. P-1174-04, Damas Vega Atencio (evidence file, folios 43370 and 43378). 49 50 21