19 be assisted by an attorney.80 On April 5, 2005, the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney formally charged him with the crimes of check fraud, use of bogus documents and forgery of a document equivalent to a public one.81 79. On October 19, 2005, the preliminary hearing was held.82 Mr. Rojas requested that the deadlines for the lapsing of the statute of limitations be examined, being that the allegedly criminal acts occurred in 1997. He contended that he had not be advised of the charges and, consequently, Articles 8.2.a, b. and c. of the American Convention were violated. The next day, the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José ordered the opening of trial proceedings for the crime of forgery of a document equivalent to a public one and check fraud.83 The Criminal Court held that the statute of limitations had not lapsed inasmuch as a period of time greater than one half the maximum prison sentence time for the crime under investigation had not elapsed.84 80. On July 2, 2009, the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José found him guilty of the crimes of fraud and use of a bogus document.85 Mr. Rojas noted that he filed a petition for writ of reversal of said conviction on cassation.86 81. On July 17, 2009, the Constitutional Chamber ruled on the habeas corpus petition filed by Mr. Rojas, who claimed that he was not served with a copy of the judgment and could not gain access to it [the judgment] because there is no equipment available at the CAI La Reforma prison facilities to view DVDs. The Constitutional Chamber requested a report from the judge that heard the case and to forward the entire case file of the court proceedings.87 On July 28, 2009, the Constitutional Chamber denied the petition.88 The Constitutional Chamber based its ruling on the statements of the judge of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit, who declared that the judgment was heard in its entirety by Mr. Rojas. Therefore, it deemed that “at no time had the appellant requested from the prison 80 Annex 34. Initial statement of defendant, dated September 19, 2000. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 7, 2009. 81 Annex 35. Official Letter from the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of the Ministry of the Public Prosecutor, of April 5, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 7, 2009. 82 Annex 36. Record of preliminary hearing before the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, dated October 19, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 7, 2009. 83 Annex 37. Official Letter opening trial proceedings from the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, dated October 20, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 7, 2009. 84 Annex 38. Official Letter opening trial proceedings from the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, dated October 20, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 7, 2009. 85 Annex 39. Judgment No. 614-2009 cited by Decision No. 2012007836 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 12, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012. 86 Annex 40. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 20, 2012. Annex to the petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 87 Annex 41. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber, dated July 17, 2009. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 7, 2009. 88 Annex 42. Decision No. 2009-011710 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated July 28, 2009. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on October 28, 2010.