to pay damages, but without ordering his release, since by that date the Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José had ordered a two-month extension of the pretrial detention. 530 Thus, in application of the principle of complementarity, the Court will not rule on the alleged violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention, given that the responsibility of the State was determined through its own domestic mechanisms, and, consequently, it was ordered to pay damages to Mr. Martínez as compensation for his illegal detention in preventive custody for a period of 12 days. VIII.III RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES (Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof) 373. The Court will now analyze the violations of the right to judicial guarantees alleged by the parties: first, with respect to the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial judge or court in the cases of Rafael Rojas Madrigal (Group 2), Jorge Martínez Meléndez (Group 4) and Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7); secondly, in relation to the alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time to the detriment of Jorge Martínez Meléndez; and third, in relation to the alleged violation of the right to defense in the cases of Jorge Martínez Meléndez and Luis and Enrique Archbold Jay (Group 3). A. Right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial judge A.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 374. With respect to Rafael Rojas Madrigal (Group 2) the Commission argued that the fact that the same judges were members of the Third Chamber that heard more than one appeal related to the same criminal proceeding, and that they analyzed the merits and not only questions of form, violated the requirement of impartiality established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to his detriment. 375. However, the Commission did not find that the involvement of a judicial authority in determining the pretrial detention and later in the trial was, in itself, incompatible with the right to an impartial judge. It emphasized that it did not have sufficient elements to determine whether in the cases of Rafael Rojas (Group 2) and Jorge Martínez Meléndez (Group 4), this guarantee was affected by such a situation. 376. The Inter-American Defenders argued with respect to Group 2, Rafael Rojas Madrigal, that he filed several appeals for cassation and review, but did not have the guarantee of an impartial judge because in several of these challenges, the judges who heard the appeal had already heard the facts beforehand. 377. The Factum Consorcio representatives alleged, with respect to Group 4, Jorge Martínez Meléndez, the violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention due to the lack of impartiality and objectivity of the judge, as well as the violation of the territorial jurisdiction of the criminal judges, for three different reasons. First, because Judge Adela Sibaja Rodríguez was replaced due to incapacity shortly before the ruling was issued, even though the period of 20 working days established by law for the suspension of hearings, due to the incapacity of a judge, had not elapsed. They explained that this judge was replaced by Judge Miriam Cf. Decision No. 2008-01650 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 1, 2008 (evidence file, folio 2175). 530 120