57 2. Rafael Rojas Madrigal and Jorge Martínez Meléndez 234. Mr. Rojas Madrigal claimed that several judges heard on more than one occasion the petitions for writ of cassation and motions for review submitted by him. In this respect, he contended that the right to an impartial judge was violated inasmuch as said judges had ruled on the merits of his petitions and motions. In response, the State countered that “in light of the many actions of review brought by the appellant, it has become materially impossible not to appoint judges who have previously participated in the settlement of one of the claims (…) which does not mean that such a situation in and of itself, implies the infringement or violation of the principle of judicial objectivity and impartiality.” It further argued that there is no infringement in the same judges intervening in more than one proceeding since they were found inadmissible and did not entail any ruling on the merits of the claims therein. 235. The Commission recalls that the Court held in the case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica that the fact that the same judges have sat on a Panel of Judges before which more than one motion pertaining to the same proceeding was filed and have examined part of the substantive and not only the formal aspect, violates the requirement of impartiality established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention.338 236. The Commission notes that according to the case file, as well as information provided by both parties, the same judge is identified as sitting in the Third Chamber, where more than one motion related to the same criminal proceeding was heard. The IACHR has established as fact that in some instances this Chamber ruled on the substantive matters. In a dissenting opinion issued on October 19, 2007, this situation was actually raised by two judges of the Third Chamber, who asserted that the members of the court, who resentenced the defendant when the case was sent back to the lower court, were the same judges who had handed down conviction No. 172-2000. 237. In this respect, the Commission finds that the State violated Mr. Rojas Madrigal’s right to an impartial judge under Article 8.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof. 238. The Commission also notes that another argument raised by Jorge Martínez Meléndez and Rafael Rojas Madrigal was that the same judge who issued the preventive detention order sat on the panel that convicted them. The Commission believes that preventive detention must serve purely procedural purposes and that it may not be based on indicia of criminal responsibility. In this regard, the Commission does not find that, in and of itself, it is incompatible with the right to an impartial judge for a judicial authority to decide on preventive detention and, subsequently sit in judgment of the defendant’s guilt at trial. The Commission does not have enough evidence to rule as to whether in this particular case said guarantee was infringed by such a situation. C. Right to a defense (Article 8.2 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 thereof) 239. Petitioners Manfred Amrhein, Ronald Fernández, Carlos Osborne, Carlos González and Arturo Fallas, made allegations regarding restrictions on the introduction of evidence. However, Mr. 338 IA Ct of HR, Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, paras. 174-175.