consists in determining whether the judge in question offered sufficient elements of conviction to exclude any legitimate misgivings or well-grounded suspicion of partiality regarding his or her person. 541 387. Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes that “[e]very person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to the law.” Thus, the Court is of the view that the principle of presumption of innocence is founded upon the existence of judicial guarantees. 542 388. The Court has also pointed out that the principle of presumption of innocence implies that judges should not start a proceeding with a preconceived idea that the accused has committed the crime as charged. 543 In turn, the State should not convict an individual informally or issue an opinion in public that contributes to forming public opinion, while the criminal responsibility of that individual has not been proven. 544 A.2.1 Situation of Jorge Martínez Meléndez (Group 4) A.2.1.1. Alleged lack of impartiality of Judge Marco Mairena 389. In the instant case, on July 30, 2004, the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José ruled by majority vote that the pretrial detention of Marvin Martínez Meléndez, brother of the alleged victim Jorge Martínez Meléndez, should be maintained. Judge Marco Mairena was a member of the trial court that issued the pretrial detention order and was part of the majority vote. Although the alleged victim was not a party to the case, the trial court did mention him in the following terms: 545 […] the judgment [conviction] issued [against Marvin Martínez] shows that nearly four hundred million colones were diverted in various ways, much of which ended up in the accounts of the companies managed by the Martínez Meléndez brothers. This money – the final destination of which is still not known - enabled the [codefendant] Jorge Martínez to flee the country and spend nearly four years living in Canada. Therefore, it is clear that, without trying to equate the rebellious conduct of Jorge Martínez to that of Marvin Martínez, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the money was diverted by the accused 546 to the accounts of companies that were shown to be related to the Martínez Meléndez family. This increases the possibility that, with the same money that Jorge Martínez spent four years living in Canada, Marvin Martínez could also do so, which is why the majority of the Court considers that there is a danger of flight […]. distance from the decision. Cf. ECHR, Case of Kyprianou v. Cyprus, No. 73797/01, G.C., Judgment of December 15, 2005, paras. 130 - 133. 541 Cf. Case of Case of Apitz Barbera et al, (“First Contentious Administrative Court”), supra, para. 56, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 98. 542 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, supra, para. 77, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 121 543 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 184, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 123. 544 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 160, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 190. 545 Cf. Decision of the Criminal Court, of July 30, 2004 (evidence file, folio 26146). 546 On August 21, 1998, the Office of the Assistant Prosecutor for Economic, Corruption and Tax Crimes filed charges against Jorge Martínez Meléndez, [SMM], Marvin Martínez Meléndez and [HBH] for the crime of fraud to the detriment of the Social Compensation and Land Titling Program and the State. Cf. Decision of the Special Duty Criminal Court of San José, of August 22, 1998 (evidence file, folio 2017). On September 7, 2000, the Criminal Court of San José, considering the Indictment and Request for Opening of a Trial by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against Jorge Martínez Meléndez, Marvin Martínez Meléndez, [SMM] and [HBH] for the crimes of embezzlement to the detriment of the Social Compensation and Land Titling Program, decided to order the complex processing of the case, as well as to maintain the ‘contempt of court’ ruling and the international warrant for the arrest of Jorge Martínez Meléndez, and to summon the rest of the parties to this proceeding to a preliminary hearing. Cf. Decision of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, of September 7, 2000 (evidence file, folio 2054). 123