having the power to participate in all deliberations, and if necessary, she will replace one of the judges.” 559 In addition, the record shows that the trial stage began 560 on April 3, 2006, the date on which the first hearing took place and at which Judge Sandí Murcia was present. 561 In addition, when deciding on the cassation appeal filed by Mr. Martínez in relation to this point, the Third Chamber indicated in its ruling of March 11, 2008, that Judge Sandí “ha[d] participated in all the trial hearings.” 562 399. On this matter, the representatives did not provide this Court with sufficient arguments or evidence to prove their assertion that the fact that Judge Sandí Murcia participated only passively in the trial until the moment she replaced Judge Sibaja implies her lack of immediacy with the evidence or a lack of impartiality or objectivity. Therefore, the Court does not find a violation of the American Convention in relation to this point. 400. The representatives further alleged that Mr. Martínez’s right to an impartial and competent judge was violated with respect to the substitution of Judge Sibaja Rodríguez by Judge Sandí Murcia, because since this was a complex proceeding and the suspension of the hearings due to the judge’s incapacity could last up to 20 working days; however, it was on the third day of Judge Sibaja Rodríguez’s absence that she was replaced by Judge Sandí Murcia. 401. This Court notes that the representatives of Mr. Martínez had already made this claim in the cassation appeal decided by the Third Chamber on March 11, 2008, in the following terms: […] the Court proceeded with the substitution of Judge Adela Sibaja Rodríguez by Judge Miriam Sandí Murcia, [...] considering that the former had been granted incapacity [leave] for more than ten days [...]. That is to say, as the complainants indicate, it was overlooked that the suspension period allowed by Article 336 in relation to Article 378 paragraph c) was twenty days and not ten, as it is a matter of complex processing. However, this assessment is not important, since Article 336, in subparagraph d), specifically provides that such suspension will occur in the event that any of the judges becomes ill to the point of being unable to act in the trial, unless the Court has been constituted from the beginning of the hearing with a higher number of judges than required for its composition, so that the substitutes may join the Court and allow the continuation of the hearing. Thus, according to what has been established, the suspension will not be justified when the Court has been integrated in this way, which is the case we are dealing with here. Therefore, the sentencing body was right to proceed, given that, based on the notion of reasonableness, it involved the illness of a judge that covered a prolonged period and that two of the accused had been held in pretrial detention on an exceptional basis, solely to ensure their presence at the trial […]. 563 402. In this regard, this Court considers that the representatives of Mr. Martínez did not offer any arguments or evidence to demonstrate that the actions of the Costa Rican courts violated his right to a competent and impartial judge, and therefore it finds no violation in relation to the substitution of Judge Sibaja after 10 days. A.2.1.3. Alleged lack of impartiality of Judge Arias Céspedes Cf. Record of Proceedings, Hearings number 1 and 2 of April 3, 2006 (evidence file, folio 24752). The trial stage is fundamental, since it is the procedural moment in which the evidence is presented to resolve the dispute. Article 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time, stated: “The trial is the essential phase of the proceeding. It shall be conducted on the basis of the accusation, in an oral, public, adversarial and continuous manner.” 561 Cf. Record of Proceedings, Hearings number 1 and 2 of April 3, 2006 (evidence file, folio 24751). 562 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 33986). 563 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008 (evidence file, folios 33984 and 33985). 559 560 126