therein or the application of domestic law; rather, they argue that the alleged victims did not have an effective remedy that would allow for a comprehensive review of their convictions, in violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. 101 In order to determine whether such violations occurred, this Court will carry out, inter alia, an analysis of the domestic procedural stages, without ignoring the inter-American human rights protection system's complementary and auxiliary nature or acting as a fourth instance. Thus, the Court dismisses the objection in this regard. 87. With regard to the State’s allegations concerning Group 4 (Jorge Martínez), in relation to the substitution of Judge Adela Sibaja Rodríguez by Judge Miriam Sandí Murcia in the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, the Court notes that in the pleadings and motions brief, the representatives alleged that “without the period [...] of 20 working days of suspension allowed due to the incapacity of a judge having elapsed, [...] [it] dismissed [...] Ms. Adela Sibaja Rodríguez as judge in [the] case, and appointed Ms. Miriam Sandí Murcía to the criminal court in her place.” According to the representatives, the latter “did not have a current appointment that would allow her to be a member of the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit,” in alleged violation of the principle of a competent judge and the territoriality of the criminal jurisdiction. Thus, the Court finds that the representatives challenge the compatibility of the actions of the domestic courts with the rights established in the American Convention, which is subject to evaluation by this Court, and therefore, the State’s objection on this point is dismissed. 88. Regarding the alleged extensive application and interpretation of the criminal offense of embezzlement used by the State of Costa Rica, the Court notes that in the pleadings and motions brief the Factum Consorcio representatives argued that “the State could not apply the criminal offense of embezzlement and sentence [to Mr. Martínez Meléndez] to prison […] because he was not a public official, since there was no valid and effective act of investiture that would establish him as such [...].” On this point, the Court finds that the representatives’ objective is to have the international jurisdiction evaluate evidence that was substantiated in the domestic jurisdiction, in order to determine whether or not Mr. Martínez Meléndez was a public official, and therefore they are not asking the Court to assess the compatibility of the actions of the Costa Rican courts with their international obligations, but rather to evaluate a factual determination made in the judgment of conviction. Consequently, the Court upholds the State’s objection on this point and will not rule on this issue. 101 Regarding Group 2, Rafael Rojas Madrigal, in the pleadings and motions brief, the Inter-American Defenders alleged that the cassation appeal filed by him on December 18, 2000, was rejected on the basis of formalities, because at that time Costa Rican legislation was not in line with the requirements of the Herrera Ulloa judgment. They also indicated that despite the issuance of the aforementioned judgment, it was necessary to "file [4] cassation appeals and [3] review proceedings" in order to reduce the sentence imposed to 1 year of imprisonment, which in their opinion evidenced the continuity of a formalistic process that did not allow for a comprehensive review of the conviction. Cf. Pleadings and motions brief of the Inter-American Defenders (merits file, folios 788 and 791). In relation to Group 3, Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Archbold Jay, in the pleadings and motions brief the representatives stated that the only remedy available to the alleged victims against the convictions that had not become final was the appeal in cassation. Thus, they considered that in the case of Luis and Enrique Archbold Jay the cassation appeal filed on July 9, 2004 was rejected under considerations that evidenced the practice of the principle of the intangibility of the facts. Cf. Pleadings and motions brief of SIPDH (merits file, folios 543 and 545). In relation to Group 6, Manuel Hernández Quesada, in the pleadings and motions brief the representatives alleged that the cassation appeal filed on July 14, 2003, was analyzed “with the formalistic rigor that operated at the time”, prior to the judgement in the case of Herrera Ulloa, and subsequently the review procedure initiated on October 7, 2006, was rejected “without further substantiation or sufficient grounds,” arguing that the review procedure should also be an accessible resource and lacking in normative or jurisprudential limits for its real access.. Cf. Pleadings and motions brief of the Inter-American Defenders (merits file, folios 786 and 787). 34