185. Subsequently, Mr. Rojas initiated two other motions for review against judgment No. 172-2000. On February 12, 2008, 234 in a single plea, he alleged the violation of due process, arguing that “the acts [committed] to the detriment of the public interest […], were not notified or attributed to him during the investigation phase.” 235 On October 29, 2010, the Third Chamber, in decision No. 2010-01205, declared the appeal inadmissible. 236 186. The second motion for review was filed by Mr. Rojas on January 21, 2013, 237 alleging i) the violation of due process; ii) the alleged omission of the preliminary statement and notification of the charges in relation to the crime of use of a false document, and iii) that bank check No. 532-2 was unlawfully introduced to the proceeding because it was seized from an employee of the Bank of Costa Rica without an order from a judge. 238” On July 2, 2014, the Third Chamber declared the three claims unfounded in decision No. 2014-01118. 239 B.1.2. File N° 02-004656-0647-TP (embezzlement and use of a false document) B.1.2.1 Criminal conviction issued in judgment N° 614-09 of July 2, 2009 187. On July 2, 2009, the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, in judgment No. 614-09, sentenced Mr. Rojas Madrigal to a five-year prison term for the crimes of embezzlement and use of a false document. 240 Mr. Rojas Madrigal 241 and his defense 234 He argued that, "upon learning of the new crime, the theft of the checkbook, he should have been questioned again, since in such case he would have requested the handwriting analysis in order to prove that [the offended party] partially filled out the form and therefore there was no malice in the use of the check […].”The date on which the appeal was filed does not appear in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, the appeal was filed on August 12, 2008. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017, Table 2 (merits file, folio 3396). 235 Cf. Decision 2010-01205 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 29, 2010 (evidence file, folio 33589). 236 It stated that: “Regarding the handwriting analysis […] in decision 2010-544 this Chamber […]stated […] 'the evidence indicated made it unnecessary to carry out a handwriting analysis to rule out the possibility that the offended party had drawn the check with which the deposit in question was made’ […]”. Cf. Decision 2010-01205 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 29, 2010 (evidence file, folio 33589). 237 The date on which the appeal was filed is not recorded in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, the motion was filed on January 21, 2013. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017, Table 2 (merits file, folio 3397). 238 Cf. Decision 2014-01118 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 2, 2014 (evidence file, folio 33592). 239 The Chamber considered the following: First reason: violation of due process due to lack of impartiality and objectivity of the judge. “[…] the complaint cannot succeed […] it is clear that the decision of the judge [ABT] is based solely on an analysis of dates and not an assessment of the merits of the case […]”; Second reason: alleged omission of the preliminary statement and notification of the charges in relation to the crime of use of false document. “[…] The appellant is not correct. The Chamber found that the complaint made has already bene analyzed with the issuance of opinion number 1205-2010 […]”; Third reason: introduction of illegal evidence into the proceedings. “[…] Declared inadmissible […] the Chamber has previously established that the seizure of checks in financial entities may be carried out by officials of the Judicial Investigation Organism, since it does not violate against banking secrecy or the privacy of individuals [.][T]here is a complaint by the victim prior to the commission of the crime, in which the theft of the checkbook is reported, and it comes from the same account as the check that originated the illicit action […]”. Cf. Decision 2014-01118 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 2, 2014 (evidence file, folio 33593 to 33597). 240 Cf. Judgment 614-09 of the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José of July 2, 2009, cited in Decision No. 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 22, 2012 (evidence file folio 33695). 241 According to the ruling, the reasons stated in these appeals were as follows: Cassation appeal filed by the defendant Rafael Rojas Madrigal. “First reason. Violation of due process and the right to defense. [...] because the flawed procedural action filed was not resolved[…],resulting in a lack of grounds. The indicated claim was based on two aspects, the statute of limitations of the criminal action and the violation of the principle of objectivity and prosecutorial impartiality [...], because the prosecution omitted to bring two pieces of evidence to the trial. 61