20 authorities what he needed to be able to hear the judgment and [at no time] had it been denied to him and, therefore, the harm claimed by him has not been established as fact either.”89 82. On January 9, 2011, Mr. Rojas filed a pleading with the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.90 He contended that the petition for writ of reversal on cassation against criminal conviction judgment No. 614-2009 of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José is still pending disposition.91 He submitted a request to convert the petition for a writ of cassation into a motion to appeal, as required under transitional provision III of Law No. 8837.92 He requested that the trial court judgment be subjected to a thorough review and that a hearing be convened as provided for under Articles 463 and 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) in order to make oral arguments and introduce evidence.93 Lastly, he requested that his case file be forwarded to the new courts of appeals of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José to carry out his requests.94 83. On April 15, 2011, the Constitutional Chamber denied the amparo petition brought by Mr. Rojas Madrigal on April 7, that year. Mr. Rojas alleged that the Third Chamber denied the request for the judges of said Chamber, who entertained the petition for a writ of cassation filed against judgment 614-2009, to recuse themselves. The Constitutional Chamber countered that the proceedings addressed by Mr. Rojas “are of a body of the Judiciary in the performance of its judicial function” and, therefore, “those acts are not subject to constitutional enforcement by means of amparo.”95 84. On February 20, 2012, Mr. Rojas Madrigal filed a petition for amparo with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.96 He contended that as yet his petition for a writ to reverse criminal conviction on cassation had not been resolved.97 85. On February 20, 2012, he filed a pleading with the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.98 He requested that the processing of his writ of cassation case be moved to the court of 89 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. 90 Annex 43. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated January 9, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 91 Annex 43. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated January 9, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 92 Annex 43. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated January 9, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 93 Annex 43. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated January 9, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 94 Annex 43. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated January 9, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 95 Annex 44. Decision No. 2011005080 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated April 15, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012. 96 Annex 45. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 20, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 97 Annex 45. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 20, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012. 98 Annex 45. Submission filed by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 20, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 3, 2012.