14 60. On September 14, 2001, the Third Chamber denied a motion for review of conviction brought by Mr. Rojas.36 The Third Chamber noted that the grounds argued by the alleged victim (failure to properly apply conduct to criminal offense, lack of correlation between charges and judgment of conviction, failure to notify and use of bogus evidence) “lacked an autonomous basis in the law and concrete proof of the consequence of the alleged defect.”37 It further noted that it stands at odds with Article 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.38 61. On February 23, 2005, the Third Chamber granted Mr. Rojas’ motion of November 29, 2004, in which he asked to drop his claims and withdraw every motion for review of conviction relating to judgment No. 172-2000, inasmuch as he had not received technical legal support.39 62. On October 19, 2007, the Third Chamber denied a motion for review of conviction brought with regard to the alleged due process violation because he was unable to appeal the judgment of the intermediate appeals court.40 The Third Chamber maintained that it has repeatedly held that the Herrera Ulloa case does not create the obligation to provide for a means to appeal a judgment to a higher judge or court, but rather a remedy that allows for a comprehensive examination of the judgment.41 It indicated that by means of the writ of reversal on cassation, it is possible to conduct a thorough examination of the merits of the judgment.42 The Third Chamber added that the petition for reversal on cassation submitted by his defense attorney was granted inasmuch as it reduced the length of the punishment from four to three years.43 63. Two justices of the Third Chamber issued a dissenting opinion wherein they noted that the claim could be entertained.44 They asserted that the petition for writ of reversal on cassation was denied under an “overly formalistic” criterion and that: (…) it is not clear why it was found inadmissible and [yet] the substantial validity of the conviction under challenge was examined. We should look into the claims of that unexamined petition for a writ of reversal on cassation, examine whether the judgment is substantiated and whether the 36 Annex 15. Decision No. 2001-00882 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 37 Annex 15. Decision No. 2001-00882 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010.ird 38 Annex 15. Decision No. 2001-00882 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 39 Annex 16. Receipt of notification of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 27, 2005. 40 Annex 17. Decision No. 2007-01117 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated October 19, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 10, 2008. 41 Annex 17. Decision No. 2007-01117 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated October 19, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 10, 2008. 42 Annex 17. Decision No. 2007-01117 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated October 19, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 10, 2008. 43 Annex 17. Decision No. 2007-01117 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated October 19, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 10, 2008. 44 Annex 17. Decision No. 2007-01117 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated October 19, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 10, 2008.