rights, and subsequently their lawyers were made aware that at any time they could request the extension of the investigation of the accused, and they did not do so. 439 319. In this regard, this Court considers that the domestic courts based their conclusions on each of the appellants’ arguments. B.2.7. Conclusion 320. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no grounds to declare a violation of Article 8(2) (h) in relation to Article 8(1) of the American Convention with respect to Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, since each of the claims filed by them throughout the appeals for cassation and review were addressed by the Costa Rican courts that heard them through reasoned decisions. B.3. Regarding Jorge Martinez Meléndez (Group 4) File No. 03-000082-016-TP (conviction for 12 counts of embezzlement as a continuous crime) B.3.1. Cassation appeals 321. On July 17, 2007, the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José convicted Jorge Martínez Meléndez of twelve counts of embezzlement of public funds as an ongoing or continuous crime. 440 Mr. Martínez and his public defender each filed a cassation appeal against that judgment. The Third Chamber declared both appeals inadmissible in decision No. 20080232 of March 11, 2008. 441 322. The public defender of Mr. Martínez Meléndez argued seven reasons defined by the Third Chamber as matters “of form”: i) violation of due process due to the inclusion and assessment of spurious evidence or evidence in violation of banking secrecy; 442 ii) lack of grounds for declaring the illegality of the alternative method of payment; 443 iii) violation of 439 Cf. Decision No. 2009-0251 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of Cartago, of August 25, 2010, (evidence file, folio 1997). 440 Cf. Judgment No. 680-2007 of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, of July 17, 2007 (evidence file, folio 35361). 441 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 33874). 442 i) According to the appellant, the violation occurred “because the legal requirements for the seizure and confiscation of checks were not observed, and the handover of checks by the bank was in breach of banking secrecy […].”The Third Chamber stated: “As indicated in the ruling, although the surrender of the checks was based on a judicial authorization that is questionable, since it does not have the name of the Criminal Judge who signed the request, nor any justification, […] when the owners of those checks allowed the Court and the parties to become aware of them, they thereby lifted the bank secrecy, and it is valid for this evidence to be analyzed and used for the purposes of the judgment. The initial defect pointed out by the appellant was rectified […].These authorizations are derived from the witness statements […]” Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008, (evidence file, folio 33936). 443 ii) According to the appellant, “In its conclusions, the defense presented and evidentiary elements that proved the existence of the legal permit that at that time authorized the transfer of FODESAF resources to the associations. However, the judges omitted any consideration in this regard [...].” The Third Chamber stated that “[it] does not agree [...] with the interpretations of the above rules made by the defense, especially since it is certain that the unlawful approval occurred, thanks to the actions of the accused Jorge Martínez [...], as well as his way of proposing and implementing the alternative method of payment, which finally led the Social Compensation Commission to be deceived. This Chamber also notes that, regardless of the legal or illegal nature of the alternative method of payment, […] the funds were diverted under a scheme conceived and created by the 99