to be able to guarantee the right of defense.” 383 However, the Court has also stated that the duty to provide grounds does not require a detailed response to every argument of the parties, but may vary according to the nature of the decision, and that it is necessary to analyze in each case whether this guarantee has been satisfied. 384 270. In the criminal sphere, as a guarantee for the accused, it is also aimed at ensuring the principle of presumption of innocence, since it allows those who are subject to the punitive power of the State to understand the reasons why it was possible to obtain a conviction on the charge and criminal liability, as well as the assessment of the evidence to refute any presumption of innocence, and only then to be able to confirm or refute the incriminating hypothesis. 385 This would make it possible to rebut the presumption of innocence and determine criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt, as well as to enable the exercise of the defense through the right to appeal the conviction. 271. The Court emphasizes that in the instant case, the alleged victims Rafael Rojas (Group 2), 386 Luis and Enrique Archbold Jay (Group 3), 387 and Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7)388 received convictions prior to the entry into force of Law 8503 on June 6, 2006, and that the alleged victims Rafael Rojas (Group 2) 389 and Jorge Martínez Meléndez (Group 4), 390 received convictions after that date, but before the entry into force of Law 8837 on December 9, 2011. The Court will now analyze the responses to the cassation and review appeals filed by these individuals against their convictions. B.1. Regarding Rafael Rojas Madrigal (Group 2) B.1.1. In relation to file N° 99-000136-0065 (use of false document) 272. Rafael Rojas Madrigal and his defense counsel filed two appeals in cassation, respectively, against his conviction of November 22, 2000, after which the Third Chamber annulled the judgment in relation to the sentence and maintained the pretrial detention measure imposed on the alleged victim. Subsequently, after his second conviction, Mr. Rojas and his defense counsel filed two more appeals in cassation, after which the Third Chamber reduced the sentence imposed and granted him the benefit of conditional execution of the sentence, ordering his immediate release (supra para. 177). In addition, Mr. Rojas filed at least seven motions for review against his convictions. 273. First, this Court notes that the two cassation appeals filed by Mr. Rojas and his defense counsel, respectively, on December 18 and 21, 2000, against his first conviction, were resolved by The Third Chamber in decision No. 2001-000122 of February 2, 2001. In the appeal filed, Mr. Rojas stated, among other grievances, that: i) in his conclusions during the trial, the prosecutor alluded to his criminal record without a final conviction; ii) there was no handwriting evidence, contrary to what was stated by the representative of the Public Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 118, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 155. 384 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 90, and Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 178. 385 Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 147. 386 Cf. Conviction judgment 172-2000 of November 22, 2000 (evidence file, folios 33484 to 33555). 387 Cf. Conviction judgment 76-2003 of August 20, 2003 (evidence file, folios 33717 to 33731). 388 Cf. Conviction judgment 736-98 of September 24, 1998 (evidence file, folios 35492 to 35610). 389 Cf. Decision 2009-614 (oral judgment). Judgment 614-09 of the trial court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José of July 2, 2009, Annex 3.3 to the State’s answering brief, and Decision 2009-614 cited in Decision No. 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of March 22, 2012 (evidence file folio 33695). 390 Cf. Conviction judgment 680-2007 of July 17, 2007 (evidence file, folios 34053 to 35363). 383 85