complex processing of the case file, in view of the number of documents that formed part of the indictment. 511 This processing had the effect - in accordance with Article 378 of the CCPof establishing the term of pretrial detention at a maximum of 18 months, with the possibility of extending it for a further 18 months, that is, a total term of 36 months before the conviction, after which the detention could be extended for a further eight months. 512 364. In the instant case, the Special Duty Criminal Court of San José ordered the first period of pretrial detention of Mr. Martínez for 6 months, from August 22, 1998 until February 22, 1999. 513 After leaving the country for more than four years and returning, following his extradition on December 3, 2003, his pretrial detention was ordered for a period of 12 months. As of December 3, 2004, the remand measure was extended three times by the Court of Cassation, as follows: i) for 8 months, from December 3, 2004, to August 3, 2005, according to the ruling of November 30, 2004; 514 ii) for six months, during the period from August 3, 2005 to February 3, 2006, according to the ruling of August 3, 2005, 515 and iii) for 4 months, during the period from February 3 to June 3, 2006, according to the ruling of February 2, 2006. 516 On that date, the maximum period of 36 months established in Article 378 of the CCP was completed. 365. Despite the fact that the 36-month term established in Article 378 of the CCP had expired, on June 2, 2006, the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José extended 511 Cf. Decision of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, of September 7, 2000. (evidence file, folio 2054). 512 Article 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at that time established: “Time limits. Once this procedure is authorized, it shall produce the following effects: a) The ordinary term of preventive detention shall be set at a maximum of eighteen months, which may be extended for an additional 18 months and, in the event of a conviction, for a further 8 months. b) The term agreed by the court to conclude the preparatory investigation shall be one year. c) In the intermediate and trial stage, the time limits established in favor of the parties to carry out any action and those that establish a certain time to hold hearings shall be doubled. d) When the duration of the trial is less than thirty days, the maximum time limit for deliberation shall be five days and the time to issue the sentence shall be ten days. When the duration of the trial is greater, these periods shall be ten and twenty days respectively. e) The time limits for filing and processing appeals shall be doubled. In any case, the rules on delay of justice shall apply. (Emphasis added) Cf. CCP Law No. 7594 (evidence file, folio 28402). 513 Cf. Decision of the Special Duty Criminal Court of August 22, 1998, (evidence file, folio 26263). The order of pretrial detention was based on Articles 238, 239 and 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which established: ARTICLE 238.- Application of preventive detention. Pretrial detention may only be granted in accordance with the provisions of this Code, by means of a well-founded judicial resolution, within the limits indispensable to ensure the discovery of the truth and the enforcement of the law. It shall be executed in such a way as to cause the least possible harm to the persons concerned. The deprivation of liberty during the proceedings shall be proportionate to the penalty that may be imposed in the case. ARTICLE 239.- Reasons for pretrial detention. The court shall order the preventive detention of the accused, provided that the following circumstances are met: a) There are sufficient elements of conviction to reasonably believe that the accused is, with probability, the author of a punishable act or participant in it. b) There is a reasonable presumption, based on an assessment of the circumstances of the particular case, that the accused will not submit to the proceedings (danger of flight); will obstruct the investigation of the truth (danger of obstruction); or will continue the criminal activity. c) The crime attributed to him/her is punishable by imprisonment. ARTICLE 241.-Danger of obstruction. In order to decide on the danger of obstruction to ascertain the truth, due consideration shall be given to the serious suspicion that the accused will: a) Destroy, modify, conceal or falsify evidence. b) Influence co-defendants, witnesses or experts to report falsely or behave in a dishonest or reticent manner, or induce others to engage in such behavior. Imprisonment may be based on this reason only until the conclusion of the trial. 514 Cf. Decision No. 2004-1233 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of November 30, 2004 (evidence file, folio 25897). 515 Cf. Decision No. 2005-0731 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of August 3, 2005 (evidence file, folios 26264 to 26270). 516 Cf. Decision No. 2006-0060 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of February 2, 2006 (evidence file, folio 27326). 117