and interpretation of evidence in the criminal matters, which is subject to the rules and guarantees of due process of law and Article 8(2) of the Convention. 432. The Factum Consorcio representatives presented the following arguments with respect to Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez): i) on April 3 and May 24, 2006, the Criminal Trial Court of San José prevented the alleged victim from being present and making direct statements regarding the evidence introduced at that time; ii) part of the documentary evidence was never analyzed, and the State refused to receive testimonial and documentary evidence proposed by Mr. Martínez’ defense. 610 In addition, the State concealed documentary evidence for the defense, 611 lost other evidence, and gave legal weight to evidence from the Public Prosecutor’s Office that was obtained “arbitrarily and illegally,” all this, in violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention; and iii) the principle of legality was violated because the alleged victim was only able to access the complete text of the judgment three years after his conviction, when, on December 3, 2010, in the Semi-Institutional Center of San Agustín in Heredia, he was allowed to use a computer in order to read said judgment, as well as the ruling of the Cassation Chamber of 2008. This is in violation of Article 364 of the CCP, which requires the court to read out the judgment and hand over a copy of it. Although his public defender had digital access to the judgment, Mr. Martínez did not receive a written copy nor was he given digital access to it, since the prison did not have the necessary digital system required to read it and properly exercise the material defense. 433. The Inter-American Defenders argued with respect to Group 2 (Rafael Rojas), that he was not given a printed copy of his conviction for the crime of embezzlement and that this violated his right to defense, due process and access to justice, established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 25(1) of the Convention. They further alleged that Mr. Rojas was given his judgment in audio and video format through a DVD, which he was unable to view because he was in prison. Despite having filed writs of habeas corpus and amparo, these were denied. 434. The State did not comment specifically on the arguments concerning the alleged violation of the right to defense of Group 3 (Enrique and Luis Archbold Jay). Regarding Group 4 (Jorge Martínez Meléndez), it argued that the representatives of the alleged victim made a series of allegations regarding the evidentiary activity that took place in the oral and public trial that led to the conviction, limiting themselves to reiterating arguments discussed internally in the cassation proceedings, seeking to have the Inter-American Court act as a fourth instance. 435. Regarding Group 2 (Rafael Rojas Madrigal), the State indicated that the judgment was handed down orally and that it was recorded in digital format. It pointed out that Rafael Rojas did not request the prison authorities to provide him with the equipment required to access the digital file of the judgment. Moreover, his technical defense had full access to the file in question, and could even have arranged to accompany him to the Criminal Court’s offices to discuss, analyze and define the defense strategy in the appeal phase or, if appropriate, take the necessary steps to do so in the prison facility where he was being held at the time. C.2. Considerations of the Court The representatives alleged that Mr. Martínez was “prevented from submitting […] essential evidence […] to prove that he did not embezzle the funds of the government programs, but that these were received by the beneficiaries.” This evidence consisted of statements of the beneficiaries of the Social Compensation program. 611 The evidence referred to consisted of a series of checks whose originals were allegedly not produced because the State “alleged that it had lost them, [and] that it could not produce or deliver them, and [later] provided a set of photocopies whose origin was also not determined, and which were used to convict.” 610 134