A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission ........................................ 51 A.2. Considerations of the Court .................................................................. 52 B. Regarding the prison conditions of the alleged victims .................................................................... 52 B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission ........................................ 52 B.2. Considerations of the Court .................................................................. 54 C. Alleged lack of impartiality of Judge Javier Llobet who tried Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7) ....... 55 VII ................................................................................................................. 55 PROVEN FACTS .............................................................................................. 55 A. Relevant regulatory framework ......................................................................................................... 55 A.1. Code of Criminal Procedure 1996 (CCP of 1996 - Law No. 7594) ................ 55 A.2. Law No. 8503 of 2006 ......................................................................... 56 A.3. Law No. 8837 of 2010 ......................................................................... 56 B. Criminal proceedings related to the alleged victims of Groups 2, 3, 4 and 7 ................................... 57 B.1. Group 2: Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal ................................................. 57 B.1.1. File N° 99-000136-065-PE (Use of false document) ............................... 57 B.1.1.1. First judgment N° 172-2000 and cassation appeals filed ..................... 57 B.1.1.2. Second judgment N° 172-2000 and cassation appeals filed ................. 58 B.1.1.3. Appeals for review filed against judgment N° 172-2000 ...................... 59 B.1.2. File N° 02-004656-0647-TP (embezzlement and use of a false document) 61 B.1.2.1 Criminal conviction issued in judgment N° 614-09 of July 2, 2009 ......... 61 B.1.2.2. Other appeals filed by Rafael Rojas Madrigal ..................................... 63 B.2. Group 3: Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay....................... 64 B.2.1. First judgment N° 76-2003 and motion for review................................. 64 B.2.2. Second judgment N° 68-2004 and motions filed ................................... 64 B.3. Group 4: Jorge Martínez Meléndez ......................................................... 67 B.3.1. Jorge Martínez’s responsibilities, first period of pretrial detention, request for asylum in Canada and extradition to Costa Rica ............................................. 67 B.3.2. Subsequent periods of pretrial detention ............................................. 68 B.3.3. Criminal conviction and appeals filed against judgment N° 680-2007 ....... 69 B.3.4 Appeals filed against the extension of pretrial detention ordered in judgment N° 680-2007 ............................................................................................ 69 B.3.5 Consolidation of convictions ................................................................ 71 B.4. Group 7: Miguel Mora Calvo ................................................................. 71 C. Regarding the CAI La Reforma ............................................................................................................ 73 C.1. Regarding the alleged mistreatment of Damas Vega Atencio ..................... 74 VIII. MERITS ................................................................................................. 75 VIII.I ............................................................................................................. 75 RIGHT TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT BEFORE A HIGHER JUDGE OR COURT ...... 75 (ARTICLE 8(2)(H) OF THE CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF) ...................................................................................................... 75 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties ................................................................................. 75 B. Considerations of the Court ............................................................................................................... 79 B.1. Regarding Rafael Rojas Madrigal (Group 2) ............................................. 85 B.1.1. In relation to file N° 99-000136-0065 (use of false document)................ 85 B.1.2. In relation to file N° 02-004656-0647-TP (embezzlement and use of a false document) ............................................................................................... 89 B.1.3. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 92 B.2. Regarding Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay (Group 3) ...... 92 B.2.1. Petition for writ of cassation .............................................................. 94 B.2.2. First motion for review ...................................................................... 95 B.2.3. Second motion for review .................................................................. 96 B.2.4. Third motion for review ..................................................................... 97 B.2.5. Fourth motion for review ................................................................... 97 3