18 of the right established in Article 8.2.h of the Convention.71 With regard to Law No. 8503, the Constitutional Chamber noted that if Mr. Rojas believes that there has been a due process violation because of infringement of the right to appeal a judgment to a higher court, “he should make the proper arguments in a criminal proceeding.”72 With respect to the legislative bill, the Constitutional Chamber emphasized that “it is not the body to review the content of draft laws.”73 76. On January 9, 2012, Mr. Rojas made a written submission to the Courts of Justice of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José.74 Seeking relief under Law No. 8837, he filed a motion to appeal the conviction.75 On February 8, 2012, the Second Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of Criminal Judgments denied the motion to appeal filed by Mr. Rojas Madrigal.76 The Court of Appeals noted that the conviction was final and conclusive and, therefore, “it cannot be contested by means of a motion to appeal judgment.” It also indicated that none of the objections provided for in Transitional Article III of Law No. 8837 of May 3, 2010 were applicable “inasmuch as it is a conviction that materially has the status of res judicata.” 77. On June 1, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber denied the amparo petition for constitutional relief filed by Mr. Rojas in the context of judgment of conviction 1536-02.77 On June 27, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Mr. Rojas on June 25 that same year in which he alleged several infringement of due process rights caused by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, which led to judgment of conviction No. 15362002, mainly the application of statutes for which regulations had not been issued.78 2.1.3. Case File No. 02-004656-0647-TP 78. On May 7, 1998, Mr. Rojas was charged with the crime of fraud for an act that had been committed in December 1997.79 On September 19, 2000, a preliminary hearing was held, at which he was notified of the crimes for which he was taken into custody and was advised that he has the right to 71 Annex 28. Decision No. 2010-008598 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 12, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on October 28, 2010. 72 Annex 28. Decision No. 2010-008598 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 12, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on October 28, 2010. 73 Annex 28. Decision No. 2010-008598 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 12, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on October 28, 2010. 74 Annex 29. Pleading submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Courts of Justice of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated January 9, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 75 Annex 29. Pleading submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Courts of Justice of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated January 9, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 76 Annex 30. Decision No. 2012-0201 of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Court of Criminal Conviction Appeals, dated February 8, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 77 Annex 31. Decision No. 2012007320 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 1, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012. 78 Annex 32. Decision No. 2012008883 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 27, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012. 79 Annex 33. Report No. 122-DE-98 of the Economic Crimes Section of the Department of Criminal Investigations. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 7, 2009.