403. The Factum Consorcio representatives also alleged the violation of the right to an impartial judge because, allegedly, in the trial hearings on July 17 564 and 20, 565 2006, in case No. 2003-000082-016-TP against Mr. Martínez, Judge Arias Céspedes expressed an interest in assisting the Public Prosecutor’s Office in its prosecutorial role, to the detriment of the defense’s position, by interrupting in the defense’s cross-examination to guide and prompt the witness. 404. On this point, after an analysis of the minutes of the hearings of July 17 and 20, 2006, this Court considers that there is no evidence to support the allegations of the representatives that Judge Arias Céspedes acted under direct or indirect influence, encouragement, pressure, threats or interference, or that she expressed hostility against Mr. Martínez, but rather that she maintained her role of guiding the trial in an impartial manner. In this regard, the representatives of Mr. Martínez did not provide videos of the trial hearings of July 17 and 20, 2006 and there are no elements in the trial records to confirm their allegations. Consequently, this Court does not have the necessary elements to prove that there was a violation of the principle of an impartial judge with respect to the actions of Judge Arias Céspedes in the aforementioned criminal case. Therefore, the Court considers that no violation of the right to an impartial judge established in Article 8(1) of the Convention has been proven in relation to this point A.2.2. Situation of Rafael Rojas Madrigal (Group 2) File 99-000136-065-PE (Use of a false document) 405. The Inter-American Defenders alleged that in the instant case the State violated the right to be heard by an impartial judge or court to the detriment of Rafael Rojas Madrigal, given that some judges ruled several times on the appeals for cassation or review filed by him and his defense counsel in the same criminal case. 406. First, it is clear from the case file that in criminal case No. 99-000136-065-PE against Mr. Rojas, a total of four cassation appeals were filed, which were decided in two rulings. Initially, two cassation appeals filed by Mr. Rojas 566 and his defense counsel, 567 respectively, were analyzed jointly in the decision of the Third Chamber of February 2, 2001. 568 In said decision, the Third Chamber heard the appellants’ allegations concerning the lack of intellectual and evidentiary grounds, the erroneous assessment of the evidence and the illegitimate grounds for setting the sentence. 569 It annulled the challenged decision due to lack of grounds regarding the setting of the sentence, and ordering a retrial. 570 407. Subsequently, on March 28, 2001, the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela again issued judgment 172-2000. 571 Mr. Rojas and his defense counsel then filed two more Cf. Record of Proceedings, Hearings Nos. 98 and 99 of July 17, 2006 (evidence file, folio 25027). Cf. Record of Proceedings, Hearings Nos. 103 and 104 of July 20, 2006 (evidence file, folio 25036). 566 Cf. Writ of cassation filed by Rafael Rojas Madrigal against Judgment No. 172-2000, on December 18, 2000 (evidence file, folio 966). 567 Cf. Writ of cassation filed by Luis Fernando Gonzáles against Judgment No. 172-2000, on December 21, 2000 (evidence file, folio 997). 568 Cf. Decision No. 2001-000122 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 2, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1010). 569 Cf. Writ of cassation filed by Luis Fernando Gonzáles against Judgment No. 172-2000, on December 21, 2000 (evidence file, folios 998 to 1007). 570 Cf. Decision 2001-000122 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 2, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1012 to 1013). 571 Cf. Judgment No. 172-2000 of the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of March 28, 2001 (evidence file, folio 33470 to 33482). 564 565 127