Sandí Murcia, who, in addition to not having the respective appointment as a Judge of the Republic, did not have territorial jurisdiction, since she exercised her functions in another jurisdiction. In this regard, they alleged that there was a loss of impartiality and objectivity due to the absence of immediacy of the evidence, since it is impossible for a person to issue a guilty verdict if she did not actively participate in the cross-examination of the witnesses, nor in the questions and answers given by the parties. They indicated that, in accordance with national and international legislation, a new trial should be initiated to guarantee the immediacy of the evidence. 378. Secondly, because the President of the Court, Marco Mairena Navarro, responsible for trying Mr. Martínez, already had a previous subjective opinion on the facts and the criminal liability of the alleged victim, having expressed his opinion on the matter three years before the Criminal Court that convicted him was established, that is, during the intermediate stage of the proceedings in the ruling of July 30, 2004, in which the pretrial detention of one of the defendants was decided. 379. Third, because Judge Ligia Arias Céspedes of the criminal court that tried Mr. Martínez expressed an interest and showed that she had information and knowledge about the case not permitted by law, and that she guided the witnesses in the hearings held on July 17 and 20, 2006. 380. With respect to Group 7, Miguel Mora Calvo, the SIPDH representatives alleged that Judge Javier Llobet who decided to extend his precautionary measure of pretrial detention, later formed part of the Court of Appeal that convicted him, thus compromising his impartiality and losing objectivity, as this could imply a preconceived opinion. 381. The State acknowledged, with respect to Group 2, Rafael Rojas, that there was a formal violation of the principle of judicial impartiality, since in case 99-000136-065-PE, the Third Chamber heard two appeals in cassation. However, no harm was caused because, although in the cassation filed against the resubmission trial the regular and alternate judges participated again, in their decision they fully accepted the claims raised by the plaintiff and reduced his sentence from 4 years in prison to 3 years for the offense of using a false document. In addition, the matter was resolved internally through decision No. 2010-00544, which handed down the minimum sentence of one year (supra para. 183). Finally, it argued that in cases such as that of Rafael Rojas, in which more than five motions for review were filed, it was impossible not to require the participation of judges who had already heard the case previously. 382. With respect to Group 4, Jorge Martínez Meléndez, the State indicated that the representative’s arguments are speculative and do not prove this violation. Finally, with respect to Group 7, Miguel Mora Calvo, it pointed out that the alleged victim did not specify which particular aspects constituted the alleged violation of Article 8(1), that is to say, in what way Judge Llobet expressed preconceived criteria or views on the merits of the case when considering the extension of the precautionary measure of imprisonment against him. It argued that for a judicial authority to participate in the determination of preventive detention and subsequently in the trial is not incompatible with the right to an impartial judge. A.2. Considerations of the Court 383. Article 8(1) of the Convention guarantees every person the right to a hearing by “a competent […] tribunal, previously established by law,” a provision that is related to the concept of a natural judge, one of the guarantees of the due process of law, which has even been accepted by certain sectors of the doctrine, as a condition of such article. This implies 121