appeals against it on April 2 572 and 24, 573 2001. In the latter, the defense counsel once again alleged “illegitimate grounds for the setting of the sentence.” 574 In this regard, in a decision on June 8, 2001, the Third Chamber analyzed the sentence imposed and confirmed that, in effect, its quantum was based on facts on which the statute of limitations had expired. It also pointed out certain aspects that were not considered by the trial court, and therefore decided that the four-year sentence imposed was disproportionate, reduced it to three years, granted the defendant the benefit of a suspended sentence and ordered his immediate release. 408. In the rulings of February 2, 2001 575 and June 8, 2001, 576 the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice was constituted, inter alia, by Judges Daniel González, Mario A. Houed, Rodrigo Castro and Carlos Redondo, the latter as an alternate judge. On both occasions, these judges ruled on the alleged lack of grounds for the sentence in two different judgments, in which the sentence to be imposed on Mr. Rojas was determined (supra para. 177). Although in the case under study the aforementioned judges decided aspects of substance and not only of form, 577 and therefore should have abstained from participating in the second decision of February 8, 2001, this Court notes that in both decisions, the Third Chamber declared admissible the appeals filed in favor of Mr. Rojas. Therefore, there is no evidence of any prejudice caused by the fact that these judges were members of the Chamber on both occasions. 409. Secondly, in August 2001, Mr. Rojas filed a motion for review, which the Third Chamber declared inadmissible in a decision of September 14, 2001, finding that it did not meet the requirements stipulated in Article 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires “specific reference to the grounds on which it is based.” 578 On November 29, 2004, Mr. Rojas requested the withdrawal of “any motion for review filed against judgment No. 172-2000,” stating that he had not received any technical legal support for its presentation. This withdrawal was accepted by the Third Chamber, including by Judges Rodrigo Castro, Jesús Ramírez and José Manuel Arroyo, 579 who were the same judges who declared inadmissible the motion of review filed in August 2001. 580 It should be noted that Judge Rodrigo Castro had already formed part of the composition of the Third Chamber that issued the two aforementioned cassation rulings (supra paras. 406 and 407). 410. It is evident from the rulings on the motion for review and its withdrawal, that in both decisions none of the judges examined substantive issues, 581 resolving only procedural matters. Therefore, the right to an impartial judge was not violated. 572 Cf. Appeal for cassation filed by Rafael Rojas Madrigal against Judgment No. 172-2000, of April 2, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1016). 573 Cf. Appeal for cassation filed by Luis Fernando González against Judgment No. 172-2000, on April 24, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1021). 574 Cf. Appeal for cassation filed by Luis Fernando González against Judgment No. 172-2000, on April 24, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1022) 575 Cf. Decision No. 2001-000122 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 2, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1010). 576 Cf. Decision No. 00550-2001 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of June 8, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1033). 577 Mutatis mutandis, Case Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 174. 578 Cf. Decision No. 2001-00882 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of September 14, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1040). 579 Cf. Notification from the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 23, 2005 (evidence file, folio 1042). 580 Cf. Decision No. 2001-00882 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of September 14, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1040). 581 Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 174. 128