390. Thus, in the decision on the pretrial detention of Marvin Martínez Meléndez, assertions were made about the conduct of Jorge Martínez Meléndez, since it was stated that he fled Costa Rica and remained in Canada with funds that a previous judgment had determined had been diverted to the accounts of the companies of the Martínez Meléndez brothers. However, in the opinion of this Court, such rulings do not constitute an assessment of the criminal liability of Jorge Martínez Meléndez. 391. Subsequently, Judge Marco Mairena was a member of the trial court and was part of the majority vote that on July 17, 2007 convicted Jorge Martínez Meléndez. 547 In this regard, the Court considers that this was a ruling of a collegiate body composed of three judges, and that the decision was adopted by the unanimous vote of all its members, which is why the participation of Judge Mairena does not violate Mr. Martínez Meléndez’s right to an impartial judge. A.2.1.2. Alleged violation of the right to an impartial and competent judge owing to the substitution of Judge Adela Sibaja by Judge Miriam Sandí Murcia 392. It is evident from the case file before this Court that Judge Sibaja was replaced by Judge Sandí Murcia on May 15, 2007 in case No. 03-82-016-TP against Jorge Martínez. 548 The representatives of Mr. Martínez alleged that this substitution violated his right to a qualified and competent judge and breached the rule of impartiality and objectivity of a judge, given that Judge Sandí did not have the necessary appointment to hear the criminal case nor territorial jurisdiction and, furthermore, she had no familiarity with the evidence during her appointment as fourth judge, owing to the lack of direct interaction with the matter. The Court will address these points below. 393. First, it is clear from official communication 708-APCC-2007 of the Judicial Branch Department of September 12, 2007, 549 that Judge Sandí Murcia was appointed as a criminal judge on the dates of the trial hearings; however, it is recorded that she was appointed to the Criminal Court of Desamparados-Hatillo, which is part of the Third Judicial Circuit of San José, with its seat in Desamparados, while the case in question corresponded to the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José. 550 394. In this regard, Article 47 of the Costa Rican Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time established the rules for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the courts. Specifically, paragraph a) stated: The court shall have jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed within the judicial district where it exercises its functions. If there are several judges in the same district, they shall divide their tasks in an equitable manner, in accordance with the distribution established for this purpose. In case of doubt, the judge who has ordered the proceedings shall hear the case. The judge who has issued the first order or resolution of the proceeding shall be deemed to have acted first. 551 Cf. Judgment No. 680-2007 of the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, of July 17, 2007 (evidence file, folios 34053 to 35363). 548 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008 (evidence file, folios 33985 and 33986). 549 Cf. Official letter 078 APCC 2007 of the Personnel Department of the Judiciary, September 12, 2007 (evidence file, folio 27356). 550 The Criminal Court of Desamparados-Hatillo, forms part of the Third Judicial Circuit of San José, according to the document of the Planning Department of the Judicial Analysis Section “Territorial and Hierarchical Jurisdiction of the Courts and Offices of the Judicial Branch” 1005-PLA-2004 June 2004 (updated in January 2015), from the web page: https://www.poder-judicial.go.cr/planificacion/images/documentos/licoteje.pdf 551 Cf. Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica. Criminal Procedure Code [Law 7594] (April 10, 1996) Article 47. 547 124