process; 451 iii) violation of the principle of concentration and continuity of the proceedings; 452 iv) violation of the chain of custody of photocopy files; 453 v) violation of the principle of oral 451 The appellant alleged that i) “they were not given a copy of the judgment, [...] despite the fact that they subsequently obtained digital copies of the judgment [...]. [The first part of the sentence was not read, and at the beginning of the reading, his defense attorney was not present. [D]uring the trial, they were denied the possibility of exercising their material defense, as they were prevented from intervening personally [...]. [T]he appellants were subjected to suffering, exhaustion, coercion and psychological pressure during the trial [...].On other occasions, unjustified restrictions were imposed on him during his statement […]. On several occasions he was denied helpful evidence without justification [for example,] he offered the testimony of the beneficiaries who would confirm directly received the benefits [...]. The prejudice is aggravated because the documentary evidence of the payments in the liquidations was not taken into account by the court. […] Similarly, it refused a document that he offered to refute that Mr. [JJML] worked under a special regimen with the Ministry of Housing and Human Settlements and was not his personal driver […].They claim that they were not allowed direct access to the evidence, nor to photocopy it, but that it was only made available to their defense counsel, [...] a situation that had occurred during the investigation since it was determined in a previous trial that the Public Prosecutor's Office had never made a warehouse with documents available to the defense, evidence that to date neither they nor their defense counsel have been able to examine, which they also offered as helpful evidence, but without success. His defense attorney was prohibited from challenging the prosecutor's questions and his time for crossexamination was limited […]Jorge Martínez Meléndez adds that, in addition to rejecting the evidence he offered to facilitate adjudication, which did not occur with other parties[,] the court rejected vital evidence offered during his statement, concerning the National Plan to Combat Poverty, which authorized the execution of the programs whose funds were being investigated with the participation of private entities […]. The court did not refer to his claims set forth in his final statement”, and ii) the court “heard evidence in his absence […],despite the fact that they had at all times expressed their refusal to proceed in this manner […].” Regarding the first and second reasons, the Third Chamber the declared them “without merit. […]As for the failure to provide proper notification of the judgment and the failure to deliver copies of it [...] the appellants themselves state that they were provided with the digital file [...] [...] [The CPC] does not allude to the nature of the copy that must be delivered to the parties. ...] [I]t is noted in the minutes that the reading [...] of the judgment was read [...], which] did not begin until their [defense counsel] was present. Moreover, with respect to the exercise of the right to material defense, inasmuch as they could only intervene through their defense counsel and were victims of mistreatment by the Court, [...] it should be noted that, in proceedings of this magnitude, characterized by the participation of numerous persons, it is essential that the process be conducted correctly, so as to achieve its goals without violating the rights of the parties. [...] [N]o testimonial evidence was taken without the presence of the defendants, nor were any decisions made in this regard […] During the trial, evidence was rejected and admitted equally among the parties, according to the needs of the proceeding […].The appellant alleges] the rejection of[:] the testimonies of the beneficiaries that he offered during his deposition; [...] a note demonstrating that [JML] was not his personal driver [...][;] a warehouse with documents, which was discovered and inventoried in a previous trial; a document referring to the National Plan to Combat Poverty [and...] a series of liquidations demonstrating the final destination of the funds, which, although admitted, were not subject to any ruling […].In this sense, it is evident [...] that the commission of the crime by the accused was considered to be proven beyond any doubt. In order to [do so...], the Court used not only the official documentation [...] that [...] gave an account of each situation, [...] but also analyzed the various testimonies of public officials, representatives of the associations, and employees [...].[T]here is no significance to the whole of the rejected evidence [...]. The issue of the rejection of the testimonies of the beneficiaries [...] is related to the liquidations on which the defendant has insisted [...] that were not evaluated in the judgment. However, […], both elements depart from of the thema probandum, because they do not refer to the same funds under investigation, and the final destination of these, clearly illicit, has been proven, so that their receipt and study in the judgment, as well as the liquidations [...], do not become important. [...] The same must be said with respect to the offer of a warehouse with documents [...]. [This evidence was offered by the defendants' counsel [...], who stated that the documentation was related to the programs and consisted of the beneficiaries' files, payment receipts and others. However, [such evidence did not have...] a close link [...] with the alleged facts [...][.] [The Chamber described the content of the documentation and pointed out that...] it is useless and irrelevant evidence. The most important thing is that its existence does not exclude the transfer of the funds under investigation to private accounts and purchases of foreign currency [...]. [It is also alleged that [...] a note demonstrating that [JML] was not Jorge Martínez Meléndez's personal driver was rejected. [...]In any case, the matter in question is proven in the judgment on the basis of multiple evidentiary elements [...which he listed]. The refusal to receive a document referring to the National Plan to Combat Poverty, which authorizes, according to the plaintiffs, the inclusion of private entities in the programs, is claimed. In [...] the contested judgment, the Court reached the opposite conclusion on the basis of the regulations in force [...], which is why the inclusion of the contents of a simple document, without the force of law, would not have contributed to changing the state of the matter. Finally, with regard to the lack of assessment of his final statements, based on a comprehensive reading of the judgment, it is understood [...] that that the arguments of the defense were rejected as certain hypotheses, in the light of the evidence received, and therefore an express ruling on these assertions was not required […]”. Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the 102