the discussion and broad review on appeal of the subject matter of the claim regarding the grounds for the sentence; therefore, the attempt to simulate an apparent violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, in order to use the Inter-American System as a fourth instance, is evident. c) with respect to Group 4, the State alleged that, based on the following arguments, Factum Consorcio seek to use the Court as a fourth instance : i) allegations concerning “the conduct of Judge Ligia Arias Céspedes during the trial against Mr. Martínez,” which would be “speculative” and would not demonstrate “that the duty of objectivity and impartiality had been violated by said judge;” ii) allegations related to the alleged extensive application and interpretation of the criminal definition used to characterize the facts of this case as constituting 12 crimes of embezzlement, seeking the review of the conviction handed down against Jorge Martínez; and iii) the alleged denial of the admission of and access to evidence for the defense. According to the State, the pleadings and motions brief “reiterates [the] claims that were not accepted internally and [are] raised under the false appearance of violations and procedural guarantees [...].” It also considered that the representatives’ intention to use this Court as an appeal body is reinforced “by requesting as reparation [the] annulment of the convictions […] seeking the automatic lifting of the status of res judicata.” d) with respect to Group 6, the State argued that the representatives of the alleged victim Manuel Hernández “seem to understand” that the right to appeal the judgment is equivalent to accepting the arguments made against a conviction; however, in the specific case, the cassation appeal allowed for the comprehensive examination of the conviction, as well as the analysis and well-founded decision to reject the claims made. Therefore, from the alleged victim's allegations, what can be inferred is an attempt to use the Inter-American System as a fourth instance. 80. The Commission requested that this preliminary objection be declared inadmissible because its analysis of the case focused on determining whether the right to a full review of the judgment and other judicial guarantees were violated within the framework of the criminal proceedings, in breach of international treaties over which it has jurisdiction. For its part, in its defense, the State has taken as a starting point that there was no violation of human rights, when this is precisely what is at issue in the merits of the case. 81. The Factum Consorcio representatives argued that they did not intend for the Court to serve as a fourth instance, but rather for it to “determine whether or not the actions of the Costa Rican courts involved in the case of Jorge Martínez violated the State’s international obligations.” In particular, with regard to the actions of Judge Arias Céspedes during the proceedings against Jorge Martínez, they argued that this is a “proven fact that confirms the biased actions of the judges and therefore […] the violation of the principle of impartiality of the judge. Thus, it cannot be seen out of context in order to improperly allege that it is an attempt to seek a fourth instance.” The representatives also considered that “the State’s argument contains assertions that are not in accordance with Costa Rican law.” With respect to the alleged extensive application of the criminal offense of embezzlement, they indicated that “evidence has been provided and offered […] [to demonstrate] that during 1997, Jorge Martínez Meléndez did not work for the State, but was an external consultant for the United Nations Program, and that by virtue of his contract he provided services in Costa Rica.” In relation to the refusal to admit and allow access to evidence for the defense, they indicated that “they did not […] offer the evidence [in their pleadings and motions brief] that the State did refused to have examined at trial”, but instead argued that the criminal proceeding was conducted in violation of conventional rights. 32