40 international trafficking and of organizing three individuals to commit the crime. The Trial Court sentenced him to a fifteen-year prison term.255 159. On September 16, 2009, the Third Chamber denied the motion for review of conviction brought by Mr. Mora Calvo on April 30, 2007.256 Mr. Mora alleged violation of the principle of impartiality on the grounds that one of the members of the sentencing court panel had sat on the panel in the issuing of a decision to grant an extension of his preventive detention term. The Third Chamber noted that said situation did not affect the impartiality of the judge inasmuch as the decision did not involve any considerations on the merits.257 Two judges joined each other in a dissenting opinion, wherein they indicated that the situation laid out by Mr. Mora constitutes a violation of the right to have an impartial judge pursuant to Article 8.1 of the American Convention on the grounds that “there is no question that the judges have had necessarily to assess evidence to provide a basis in the facts for the precautionary measure [of preventive detention].”258 7.3. Remedies pursued by Mora Calvo outside of the criminal proceedings 160. On May 1, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber flatly denied the petition for amparo relief filed by Mr. Mora, arguing that he is deprived of his liberty arbitrarily since “he is unable to appeal the conviction handed down against him.”259 The Constitutional Chamber stated that it is not its duty “to replace the criminal jurisdiction or act as a court of review in the subject matter.”260 It further noted that if Mr. Mora believes that during the processing of his case and conviction there were due process violations, this issue should be raised through the procedure for review of judgment. 161. On January 6, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber denied the petition for habeas corpus relief filed against the Third Chamber by Mr. Mora, alleging a violation under Article 8.2.h of the American Convention and pursuant to the provisions of the Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica case judgment. The Constitutional Chamber held that said argument has been examined thoroughly and that the principle of the right to appeal a judgment to a higher court “has been satisfied with the extraordinary remedy of the writ for reversal on cassation.”261 8. Damas Vega Atencio 255 Reference to judgment No. 632-2000 in: Annex 123. Official Letter of Miguel Mora, dated April 30, 2007. Annex to State’s communication of December 8, 2008. 256 Annex 124. Decision No. 2009-01158 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 16, 2009. Annex to petitioner’s communication received at the IACHR on March 15, 2010. 257 Annex 124. Decision No. 2009-01158 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 16, 2009. Annex to petitioner’s communication received at the IACHR on March 15, 2010. 258 Annex 124. Decision No. 2009-01158 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated September 16, 2009. Annex to petitioner’s communication received at the IACHR on March 15, 2010. 259 Annex 125. Decision No. 2005-06480 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 1, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 28, 2006. 260 Annex 125. Decision No. 2005-06480 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 1, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 28, 2006. 261 Annex 126. Decision No. 2006-000052 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated January 6, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 28, 2006.