11 over a period of the first six months, the procedure for review of conviction, which shall be heard in keeping with the jurisdictional authority established in this Law, by the former Courts of Cassation or the Third Chamber for Criminal Matters [of the Supreme Court]. In matters pending disposition and in which claims were made of a violation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention of Human Rights prior to that time, the appellant shall be given a period of two months to convert his or her petition for writ of cassation into a motion for appeal, which shall be filed before the former Courts of Cassation or the Third Chamber, as appropriate, which shall forward the case file to the new Courts of Appeals. B. Status of the Alleged Victims 1. Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos González Lizano and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga 50. On June 18, 2001, the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José issued a conviction of several individuals including Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos González Lizano, Carlos Osborne Escalante and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga as co-perpetrators in the crime of embezzlement of public funds in abuse of public office.16 The Trial Court sentenced them to a 15-year prison term and disqualified them for 10 years from holding public office.17 51. On September 22, 2003, the Third Chamber denied the petitions for writ of reversal on cassation filed by them.18 In these petitions, arguments were made on violation of the principle of derivation logic, failure to provide a basis for the judgment of conviction, distorting the account of the facts in the charging document, among other aspects. The Chamber “wrote a synopsis of the facts that were considered as proven by the trial court, which was the essential basis for the ruling issued.” Using the facts established by the Trial Court as a foundation, the Third Chamber ruled on the grounds for reversal under cassation that were pleaded. With respect to the petition of Arturo Falla, the Third Chamber noted that “in both the facts that were considered as proven and the examination of the evidence corroborating them [the facts], the claims of the challenger (…) are not consistent with a macro view of the decision issued.”19 With regard to the petitions of the other alleged victims, the Third Chamber made reference to the facts already proven by the court and indicated that the arguments do not “fit the proven factual framework.”20 52. Notwithstanding, Carlos Gonzáles Lizano submitted an argument on the legal assessment of the established facts. Specifically, he argued that some of the facts should have been subsumed into other ones and not considered as autonomous crimes of embezzlement of public funds. The Third Chamber accepted said claim and reassessed the facts and convicted him as co-perpetrator of 16 Annex 4. Judgment No. 746-2001 of the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, dated June 18, 2001. Annex to petitioners’ communication of March 24, 2004. 17 Annex 4. Judgment No. 746-2001 of the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, dated June 18, 2001. Annex to petitioners’ communication of March 24, 2004. 18 Annex 5. Decision No. 2003-00822 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 22, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ communication of March 24, 2004. 19 Annex 5. Decision No. 2003-00822 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 22, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ communication of March 24, 2004. 20 Annex 5. Decision No. 2003-00822 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 22, 2003. Annex to petitioners’ communication of March 24, 2004.