20. They further allege inadequate prison conditions, and also that as a result of legal reforms, some judgments are issued on CD, which hinders access to them and as a result, hampers their defense. Petition 233-04: Manfred Amrhein Pinto, Ronald Fernández Pinto, Carlos Osborne Escalante, Carlos Manuel González Lizano and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga 21. The alleged victims were prosecuted in a criminal case as members of the Board of Directors of the Banco Anglo Costarricense, and were sentenced in judgment No 746-2001 of June 18, 2001, handed down by the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, as perpetrators of the crime of embezzlement as a continuing offense, to 15 years of prison, with a ten-year ban on holding public office.They report that the Appeals Court [Tribunal de Casación] reduced the sentence from 15 to 12 years of prison. They allege violation of Articles 7.3, 8, 9, 11, 23 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. 22. The petitioners allege that the typification of the crime of embezzlement violates the guarantee of the rule of law, because it is open-ended and therefore, any conduct of a civil servant, even if lawful, could be considered a crime 18. They also allege that the criminal proceedings were unjustifiably delayed, and did not guarantee them equal opportunity to exercise their right to a broad defense to enter, question and examine the evidence; and, inter alia, that the evidence was not evaluated according to the rules of sound judicial discretion 19. They also allege that the guarantees of the presumption of innocence and of protection of their dignity and good name were violated, since officers of the court, including the first judge of instruction, expressed value judgments about the trial, which meant prejudging the culpability of the alleged victims in the eyes of the public. 23. With regard to the requirement in the Convention that domestic remedies be exhausted first, they allege that domestic remedies were exhausted with the filing of the appeal; it was denied on September 22, 2003 and notified on September 25, 2003 20, and that the appeals procedure is the only judicial remedy that can be filed against a final judgment.They also allege that the request for review is per se an extraordinary one, and the petition for a writ of amparo is not in order to contest judicial decisions. Petition 669-04: Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal 24. Mr. Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal was charged in three criminal trials that ended with the following judgments: 1) judgment No. 1536-02 of the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on December 12, 200221, which sentenced him to 24 years in prison for the crime of rape and sexual abuse of a minor; 2) judgment No. 172-00 of the Trial Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela on March 28, 2001, which sentenced him to four years of prison for the crime of using false papers 22, and 3) judgment No. 614-09 handed down by the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on July 2, 2009, which sentenced him to five years in prison for the concurrent crimes of using false papers and fraud23.He alleges violation of Articles 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof; and of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 18 According to the petitioners, during the trial, conduct by the accused were characterized as crimes, but they were not culpable or unlawful acts, but were merely were administrative acts. They also allege that the crime of embezzlement must be with criminal intent, but however, the defendants had been convicted by omission because legal and administrative conduct had been interpreted as signs of culpability and had been condemned by analogy. 19 For example, they say that a witness gave false testimony in the oral proceedings, but was not prosecuted. 20 Regarding the filing of an appeal, the petitioners allege that they did not have the time or the resources needed to prepare their defense. 21 Case No. 99-029291-042-PE. 22 Case No. 99-000136-065-PE. According to the information provided, the judgment was quashed in terms of the length of the sentence, which was reduced to one year’s imprisonment. 23 The petitioner indicates that he was sentenced in two other cases in the nineteen eighties, and served his sentences. He says that he received another judgement during that decade, but that the conviction had been suspended.He alleges that the State had refused him a copy of those case files, and that they denied his petition for a writ of amparo in this matter. 5