the rules of sound judgment regarding Mr. Martínez’s status as a public official; 444 iv) lack of intellectual grounds in the assessment of the exculpatory evidence; 445 v) arbitrary rejection of evidence for the defense; 446 vi) failure to substantiate the sentence imposed; 447 and vii) lack of grounds for the penalty, in terms of the difference between the quantum of the sentence imposed on Martínez Meléndez and the rest of the defendants. 448 He also mentioned two additional reasons characterized as “substantive” by the Third Chamber: i) erroneous defendants […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 33939). 444 iii) According to the appellant, "[t]here is no [...] valid act of appointment that proves that Jorge Martínez was a public official or, failing that, that he exercised any public function […]”. The Chamber declared the argument inadmissible, since “[t]he appellant is mistaken in considering that the accused [...] by virtue of the clause [...] that establishes that he would not be an employee of the central government or of any autonomous institution and that he would not receive salaries or wages of any kind from the Government of Costa Rica, did not have the status of a public official, since his status as a public official stems from the function he performed as coordinator of the Land Titling and Social Compensation Programs, which worked with public funds, without the origin of the remuneration he received for such work being of any interest whatsoever[...]. Regarding the term of the appointment [...] on October 1, [1995], [...] the defendant was hired to provide professional services to the National Plan to Combat Poverty, acting as coordinator of the two Local Development Area Commissions, [...] and he participated, in session 2-97 held on February 4, 1997, in which he proposed the so-called 'alternative method of payment', still participating extensively in the administration of the funds in that year. [His] presence in the Social Compensation activities, even in 1997, is evidenced in his statement, in which he even claims to have resigned as advisor to join the political pre-campaign of the National Liberation Party in September of that year.” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 33944). 445 iv) According to the appellant, “the exculpatory evidence [...] demonstrates that the money that is alleged to have been stolen or misappropriated was in fact earmarked for the payment of debts and obligations of the beneficiaries of the Social Compensation Program […].” The Chamber dismissed the argument and submitted to analysis a similar plea filed by the public defender of co-defendant in which he describes the elements of conviction that gave rise to the appealed judgment. In this regard, it stated: “[c]ontrary to what the defense attorney alleges [...] the Court of merit undertook an extensive analysis of the statements made by Jorge Martínez Meléndez throughout the debate, contrasting them with the evidence already in the case file and the evidence specifically referred to by the accused in his statement. […] In the ruling, the court found a lack of correspondence between the statements of the accused and the documentary evidence provided, without it being possible to consider that the exculpatory evidence had been disregarded. Thus, after the trial was completed, it was determined that the funds [...] had been stolen and diverted through the generation of the checks cited by the defense itself […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 33946). 446 v) According to the appellant, the “rejection of this evidence, based on its untimely submission, is extremely formal, and [...] the defense is left at a clear disadvantage for the purposes of assessing the sentence to be imposed [...].” The Chamber rejected the reasoning and argued that “[d]espite the fact that […] the evidence mentioned was not admitted because it was time-barred, this situation has not caused any disadvantage to the accused in the imposition of the sanction because, as stipulated in the grounds for the sentence, the trial court did not overlook the family situation or the conduct of Mr. Martínez Meléndez in the prison environment […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 33947). 447 vi) According to the appellant, “the trial court, [in] upholding the 19-year prison sentence against Jorge Martínez, takes up the arguments of the Public Prosecutor's Office without giving any importance to the criteria of the technical and material defense […]”. The Chamber stated that “the sentencing court establishes the grounds for the penalty imposed […]: the financial losses suffered by the Costa Rican State, […] that the accused failed in his duty of probity in public office […], the clear use of people who trusted the accused and his reputation, to divert the funds without using his name […], the lack of social conscience, since he would have been in contact with the most needy social groups and become aware of their situation. […]Despite the judges' rejection of the evidence offered by the defense, they took into account that Jorge Martínez has no previous convictions, has a stable family and during the period of his incarceration has displayed good behavior at the prison facility. […] This Chamber does not find that aspects that the defense has considered important for the determination of the sanction have in any way been disregarded […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 33949). 448 vii) The Chamber declared “the claim unfounded. [...The] penalty imposed on Jorge Martínez is based on substantive aspects that specifically concern him, such as the position he held, his influence in national politics, the trust of the central government in him, the economic advantage he obtained, and his attempt to evade national justice […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 33950). 100