counsel 242 each filed a cassation appeal. On January 9, 2011 243 and February 20, 2012, 244 in briefs addressed to the Third Chamber, Mr. Rojas requested the conversion of his writ of cassation into a motion for review in cassation as provided for in transitory provision III of Law 8837. 188. Through decision No. 2012-00526 of March 22, 2012, the Third Chamber declared inadmissible the cassation appeals filed by Mr. Rojas and his defense counsel. It also denied his petition to convert the petition for a writ of cassation into a motion for appeal, considering that: “the request […] omits to state the basis for the grievance, since [the appellant] only mentions the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention […][but] does not state the reasons that lead him to believe that, despite his petition being filed prior to Law 8837 entering into force, the appeal procedure provided for therein should be applied to him [retroactively].” 245 […]; Second reason. Violation of due process: The appellant pointed out that six witnesses were included in the indictment, of which only two were heard during the trial, [and] [...] the deponents who in his opinion were essential were not heard […]; Third reason. Violation of the rules of sound judgment: the defendant indicated that the Court manipulated the evidence given in the debate and did not analyze it objectively […] only the evidence that served to convict him […], and Fourth reason. Violation of due process. The appellant stated that proven fact number one [of the sentence] [...] was considered proven [...] in violation of the rules of sound judgment […]. Writ of cassation presented by the […] defense of the accused […]. Sole plea: Violation of due process and right of defense, given the lack of intellectual evidentiary grounds and violation of the rules of sound judgment: The appellant stated that the court [considered] that the accused had participated the alleged acts as co-perpetrator, both in the crime of fraud, and in the of use of false documents [,] although this is not established [...] with absolute certainty from the evidence received at the oral and public trial.” Cf. Decision No. 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 22, 2012. (evidence file, folios 33698, 33700, 33701, 33702 and 33704). 242 The date on which the appeal was filed is not recorded in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, it would have been filed on July 22, 2009. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017, table 1 (merits file, folio 3394). 243 Cf. Brief submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of January 9, 2011. (evidence file, folio 1489). 244 Cf. Brief submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 20, 2012. (evidence file, folio 1497). 245 The Third Chamber ruled as follows: “[Writ of cassation presented by the defendant Rafael Rojas. First reason, the alleged violation of due process and the right of defense]. The claim is untenable. The Court rejected the the statute of limitations claim in a well-founded manner, just as the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José had done [...]. The claim presented by the accused is not admissible because the act that gave rise to the present case was committed on December 15, 1997 [...], so that when the [CCP] entered into force in January 1998, the statute of limitations began to run again, but reduced by half, [which was interrupted] in September 2000 with the indictment of the accused […];As for the second argument regarding the alleged lack of objectivity of the Prosecutor's Office in failing to bring two pieces of evidence to the trial]. Its absence cannot be associated with a lack of objectivity on the part of the Public Prosecutor's Office, [...] notwithstanding the foregoing, this Chamber, making a hypothetical inclusion of this evidence, manages to determine that it would not be fundamental to change the direction of the judges' decision; [Regarding the second and third grounds:] The claims are resolved jointly due to the connection between the two allegations. [With respect to the witnesses that the complainant alleges were not received and were fundamental, neither the accused in his material defense nor his defense counsel objected to the rejection of the statements. […]. This Chamber notes […]that the defense's allegations vanish, since it has been determined with the required certainty that the accused, in the company of another subject, went to the business of the offended parties [...] and made the respective request, with which both witnesses agree […]; [Fourth reason regarding the alleged violation of due process:] The plea is rejected. By modifying the proven facts, the plaintiff seeks to reconstruct his own factual framework [...][...] The foregoing summary undoubtedly confirms the defendant's participation in the facts; contrary to the complainant's assertion, the findings of the trial judges are clear, coherent and congruent with the evidence […]. [Appeal for cassation filed by [the] defense of the accused Rafael Rojas Madrigal: Sole reason for the alleged violation of due process and right of defense:] The claim cannot succeed. […] In the specific case, it was possible to determine the specific role played by [Rafael Rojas] and [another] subject [...] in the execution of the prior plan, which involved the distribution of tasks for a common purpose: to defraud the victim.” Cf. Decision No. 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 22, 2012. (evidence file, folios 33699, 33700, 33701, 33702 and 33704). 62