not provided with a printed copy, in violation of his right of defense, since he was incarcerated in a prison facility and did not have the means to read the digital version. 452. In is an undisputed fact that the aforementioned court provided a digital copy of the conviction, which consisted of more than one thousand pages, to Mr. Martínez and his representative. 634 In this regard, this Court considers that the representatives did not offer sufficient arguments or evidence to demonstrate why a complete reading of the judgment would be necessary to ensure the alleged victim’s right of defense. Furthermore, there is no record in the case file - nor was it alleged - that Mr. Martínez had requested the technological means necessary to read the judgment while he was in prison and, therefore, this Court does not have the necessary elements to prove a violation of the right of defense recognized in Article 8(2) of the Convention. C.2.2. Situation of Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Archbold Jay (Group 3) 453. In the instant case, the representatives of Luis and Enrique Archbold Jay alleged that their clients were unable to exercise their right to a full defense in the criminal proceedings. They also mentioned that in the proceedings before the courts of first instance and in the appeals for review and cassation, some basic principles of due process established in Article 8(2) of the Convention were violated. 454. The representatives of Luis and Enrique Archbold did not indicate in their arguments regarding the right of defense, which specific aspects and in what circumstances their rights were violated. Therefore, this Court does not have sufficient elements to rule on the alleged violation of Article 8(2) of the Convention. C.2.3. Situation of Rafael Rojas Madrigal (Group 2) 455. In the instant case, the representatives of Mr. Rojas alleged violations of Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 25 of the Convention because the defendant was not provided with a printed copy of his conviction for the crimes of embezzlement and use of a false document, but was only provided with the judgment in audio and video format on a DVD, which he was unable to view because he was in prison and, despite having filed writs of habeas corpus and amparo, these were denied. As already noted, on July 17, 2009, Mr. Rojas presented a writ of habeas corpus that was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Chamber because no evidence was provided to show that he had asked the prison authorities to provide the necessary technological tools to access the judgment and that this request had been denied (supra para. 294). Consequently, the Court considers that Mr. Rojas’ representatives did not provide any evidence or arguments to reach a different conclusion, and therefore, in application of the principle of complementarity, it will not make additional considerations in this regard. D. Conclusion 456. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is not internationally responsible for: (i) the violation of the right to an impartial judge established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Martínez Meléndez and Rafael Rojas Madrigal; (ii) the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Jorge 634 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of March 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 33959) and Cf. Judgment No. 680-2007 of the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José of July 17, 2007 (evidence file, folios 340053 to 35363). 138