2010, the Third Chamber found Mr. Rojas’ claims to be groundless, since they were based on “a factual assumption completely unrelated to the reality of the case file […].” 588 414. The Court notes that in its decision of October 19, 2007, the Third Chamber addressed the claim filed by the appellant in a well-reasoned manner, while in the decision of October 29, 2010 it merely dismissed the appellant’s insistence on the same matter precisely because it had already been addressed previously and because the motion was manifestly unfounded, that is to say, on the second occasion it did not examine the merits of the matter raised. Therefore, this Court does not consider that the fact that on both occasions the Third Chamber included Judge Jesús Ramírez constitutes a violation of the guarantee of an impartial judge. A.2.3. Situation of Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7) 415. In the instant case, the SIPDH representatives alleged the violation of the right to an impartial judge, established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Mora Calvo. They noted that on September 22, 2000, Judge Llobet Rodríguez was a member of the court that issued decision No. 2000-731 on the extension of Mr. Mora Calvo’s pretrial detention and, subsequently, on December 5, 2000, the Trial Court of Goicochea, also constituted by Judge Llobet, among others, issued a conviction in criminal case No. 99003994-042 PE. 589 According to the representatives, because Judge Llobet had been involved in extending the pretrial detention, he would have formed a prior opinion and lost objectivity. 416. In this regard, the Court notes that the Court of Criminal Cassation composed, among others, by Judge Javier Llobet, which extended the pretrial detention, made the following analysis: […] An examination of the case file leads to the conclusion that the case was handled diligently by the prosecution, without wasting time and within the reasonable possibilities of investigation, [...], so that no irregularity or negligence was detected. Now, the possibility of the defendants’ commission of the crime under investigation is proven by the status of the case file, which shows that the case was sent to trial; and the possibility of a severe penalty arises because of the legal classification established in the indictment of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Consequently, the requirements for the application of Articles 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are satisfied. This leads this Chamber to accept the prosecutor's request, but granting the measure for two months […]. 590 417. It is clear from the foregoing that the Court of Criminal Cassation and, in particular, Judge Llobet, at no time addressed the merits of the case, but rather studied the elements necessary to order pretrial detention, as set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, this Court does not consider that the right to be tried by an impartial judge was violated in the case of Mr. Mora Calvo. B. Right to be tried within a reasonable time B.1. Arguments of the parties 418. Neither the Commission nor the State referred to this point. The Factum Consorcio representatives argued, with respect to Group 4, Jorge Martínez Meléndez, that the State “conducted the criminal proceedings very slowly, did not […] try [the alleged victim] within a Cf. Decision No. 2010-01205 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 29, 2010 (evidence file, folios 33589 and 33590). 589 Cf. Judgment No. 632-2000 of the Trial Court of Goicoechea, of December 5, 2000 (evidence file, folio 20456). 590 Cf. Decision No. 2000-731 of the Court of Criminal Cassation, Second Judicial Circuit of San José of September 22, 2000 (evidence file, folio 44980). 588 130