lead him to consider that, despite the fact that his petition was filed before the entry into force of Law 8837, the appeal procedure should be applied to him.” 405Mr. Rojas filed a writ of habeas corpus against that ruling, which the Constitutional Chamber rejected based on decision No. 2012-011508 in which it had previously declared without merit an action of unconstitutionality filed against the Third Chamber’s interpretation of transitory provision III. 406 286. This Court considers that the refusal to reconsider was based on a formalistic criterion that, in addition, expanded the requirement set forth in the law. That is to say, it is not clear from the regulatory text that, in fact, it was necessary to establish the reasons why the appropriate remedy would be an appeal and not the cassation appeal, but it only refers to “specifying the grievance,” which could well be understood as the motive or claim that was being analyzed in the cassation appeal being processed. However, it is necessary to analyze the resolution of the cassation appeals referred to above (supra para. 283) to determine whether, despite the refusal to allow conversion, a full review of the judgment was carried out in accordance with the Convention. 287. On the one hand, in his cassation appeal, Mr. Rojas’ defense counsel alleged violations of due process and of the right to defense owing to the lack of evidentiary and intellectual grounds and the rules of sound judgment in the conviction. He pointed out that the trial court considered that the defendant had participated as a co-perpetrator in the offense when he was at most an accomplice because he did not have control over the act of embezzlement, and therefore a lesser sentence should have been imposed. On the other hand, he pointed out that, according to the rules of sound judgment, the accused was not involved in the crime of using a false document. 407 288. For his part, Mr. Rojas presented four arguments: i) violation of due process and the right to defense due to the statute of limitations for the criminal action and the failure by the Prosecutor’s Office to present two pieces of evidence at trial; ii) that the testimony of witnesses who in his opinion were essential was disregarded, affecting his right of defense and allowing an arbitrary sentence to be handed down; iii) that the [trial] court manipulated the evidence received, did not analyze it objectively and only used the evidentiary elements that were useful to convict him; and iv) violation of due process inasmuch as proven fact number one, alleged by the Public Prosecutor's Office, was taken as proven in the judgment [...] from the testimonial evidence composed of only two witnesses N and E [...]. In the appellant's opinion, witness N did not establish that R [Rojas Madrigal] had identified himself as M [...]. In relation to proven fact number two […] they could not clearly determine that R [Rojas Madrigal] had any commercial relationship with the owner of the business or commercial premises where the merchandise was left or delivered [...]. As to fact number three [...] no report [...] was requested from the General Directorate of Taxation […]. With respect to fact number four […] the testimonial evidence was not sufficient to prove that the check […] was handed over as payment for the merchandise […].” 408 289. The Third Chamber decided both appeals on March 22, 2012. Regarding the claim presented by the defense, the Chamber ruled that it could not succeed. To this end, it 405 Cf. Decision No. 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, of March 22, 2012. (evidence file, folio 33697). 406 Cf. Decision No. 2012012366 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, of September 4, 2012. (evidence file, folio 1678). 407 Cf. Writ of cassation cited in Judgment 2012-00526 by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of March 22, 2012 (evidence file, folios 33705). 408 Cf. Writ of cassation of July 22, 2009 cited in Judgment 2012-00526 by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of March 22, 2012 (evidence file, folios 33698 to 33703). 90