crimes, this was delivered by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José composed of three judges, one of whom was Judge LGBG.161 In summary, the dispute stems from the fact that LGBG had decided the appeal against one of the decisions that extended the pre-trial detention and had then been a member of the collegiate court that convicted Scot Cochran and, in particular, whether LGBG, when acting as an appellate judge, examined the grounds for extending the precautionary measure, because such an assessment of the facts could give rise to partiality pursuant to this Court’s precedents. 120. Apart from the decisions that indicate the participation of Judge LGBG in the review of the precautionary measure and then in the collegiate court that handed down the judgment against Scot Cochran, the parties did not provide any other probative elements as evidence of some type of partiality in the actions of the judicial official. Furthermore, the Court notes that no challenge was filed against the judge, nor was his partiality alleged at any stage of the trial prior to the delivery of the judgment. 121. The Court finds that there are three elements that are crucial for its assessment of the impartiality of the judge in this case: (i) the object and scope of the decision issued by Judge LGBG on the appeal against the measure of deprivation of liberty, which merely verified the existence of the legal requirements for the measure and did not assess the merits of the matter; (ii) the decision to convict Scot Cochran was taken by a collegiate court, where LGBG was only one of three judges, and the vote was unanimous; thus, even without the participation of LGBG the result would have been a conviction – since the other two judges had not been challenged, and (iii) even though the possibility existed of challenging LGBG as a member of the collegiate court, neither Scot Cochran nor his representatives filed this challenge. 122. Regarding the participation of LGBG in the collegiate court after he had decided the appeal on the ruling that extended the measure of detention, the Court considers that, although the participation in the trial court of a judge who has previously examined the case may have an impact on the guarantee of impartiality, it should be underscored that, in this case, this participation occurred at the investigation stage and not to order pre-trial detention; rather it was to decide the appeal against the precautionary measure. This Court has already ruled in a similar situation in relation to the Costa Rican State. In particular, in Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, it did not consider that the right to be tried by an impartial judge had been violated because the judge in question did not “enter into the merits of the matter, but had examined the elements required to order pre-trial detention.”162 In addition, in its recent case law, the Court has indicated that determination of pre-trial detention is not “an element susceptible of violating the right to the presumption of innocence contained in Article 8(2) of the Convention.”163 The fundamental purpose of the decision on the appeal was to verify that the previous judge who, in turn, had only extended the length of the pre-trial detention, had complied with the formal requirements for such a measure. Thus, it cannot be considered that the assessment made at this stage by the appeals judge had been sufficient to influence a subsequent determination of responsibility and guilt. 161 Cf. Judgment No. 851-04 of the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José of August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 7363 a 7461). 162 Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 417. Case of Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 7, 2022. Series C No. 470, para. 101. 163 35