21 appeals, and that as yet it had not been settled. He argued that being held in custody “aggravated [his] condition of having [the] criminal proceeding [up] in the air.” He contended that under transitional provision III of Law No. 8837, a motion to convert the petition for writ of reversal on cassation into a motion to appeal with a period of two months was permitted.99 86. Based on accounts provided by the State, on March 22, 2012, the Third Chamber denied the petition for writ of reversal on cassation.100 The Third Chamber rejected the different arguments that “the [trial] court took as the point of departure [a particular] platform of facts” which established “the certainty of the claimant being the perpetrator, as well as his way of acting.”101 It further noted that “taking a proven fact, or two, in isolation from other ones, which expand and/or complement them, just as is done by the claimant, would mean getting into a prohibited area, both for the challenging party and for this Chamber.”102 87. Additionally, in said decision, the Third Chamber denied the request to convert the petition for writ of cassation into a motion to appeal because Mr. Rojas did not fulfill the requirements set forth in Transitional Article III of Law No. 8837.103 Particularly, it noted that his request “is careless with regard to stating the basis for the grievance, being that he only references the violation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention.”104 It also held that Mr. Rojas did not explain the reasons that led him to believe that, despite his petition being filed prior to Law No. 8837 came into force, the procedure for appeal of conviction, provided for therein, should be applied to his case.105 88. On September 4, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber denied the petition for habeas corpus relief sought by Mr. Rojas, in which he argued that the Third Chamber denied his motion to convert the petition for writ of cassation into motion to appeal.106 89. On November 5, 2012, Mr. Rojas filed another petition for relief under a writ of habeas corpus with the Constitutional Chamber. He contended that he did not file a motion for review of judgment 614-2009 because he was unable to gain access to the written judgment of conviction due to the fact it was provided to him in compact disc format.107 99 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. 100 Annex 46. State’s submission of June 21, 2013. 101 Annex 46. State’s submission of June 21, 2013. 102 Annex 46. State’s submission of June 21, 2013. 103 Annex 47. Decision No. 2012012366 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 4, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of April 22, 2013. 104 Annex 47. Decision No. 2012012366 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 4, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of April 22, 2013. 105 Annex 47. Decision No. 2012012366 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 4, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of April 22, 2013. 106 Annex 47. Decision No. 2012012366 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 4, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of April 22, 2013. 107 Annex 48. Submission of petition for writ of habeas corpus, dated November 5, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s submission of December 21, 2012.