13 Procedure establishes.” The Third Chamber held that “what is formulated [in this petition] is [his] disagreement with the result of the final trial.”28 57. In the same judgment, and with regard to the petition filed by the public defender, the Third Chamber ruled that “the triers of fact go to great lengths in assessing the evidence introduced in the proceedings (…) as such it is untrue that the judgment is not backed by the intellectual support as claimed.”29 Notwithstanding, the Third Chamber noted that the Court did not explain how it was serious to use a little boy and a young man in the commission of the crime inasmuch as their involvement was in the offense of fraud, a crime that has lapsed, and not the use of a bogus document, for which he was punished. Consequently, the Third Chamber ordered it to “vacate the judgment with regard to the setting of the punishment and ordered the case to be sent back so that, if possible, the same triers proceed to make a determination under the law.”30 Additionally, the Third Chamber ordered the preventive custody measures to remain in effect as it awaited the new judgment of the trial court. 58. On March 28, 2001, the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela issued new judgment No. 172-2000.31 The Court held that after hearing the parties at trial, Mr. Rojas was found to be guilty of the crime of use of a bogus document in abuse of public office and he was given a 4-year prison term. In response to this decision, on April 2 and 24, 2001, Mr. Rojas and his public defender filed new petitions for writs of reversal on cassation, respectively. They argued that the basis for the punishment, as the Third Chamber requested of the trial court to provide in the new sentence, is at odds with the elements of the crime for which he was sentenced and, therefore, is illegal.32 59. On June 8, 2001, the Third Chamber ruled on the petitions filed and noted that the trial court committed the same error it [originally] had pointed out.”33 The Third Chamber found that the 4year prison sentence imposed on him “is not proportional to the acts performed by the claimant and for the sake of procedural economy, the length of the prison term imposed is reduced (…) to the sum of three years in prison.”34 Accordingly, the Third Chamber ordered his immediate released.35 28 Annex 11. Decision 2001-000122 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 2, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 29 Annex 11. Decision 2001-000122 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 2, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 30 Annex 11. Decision 2001-000122 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 2, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 31 Annex 8. Judgment No. 172-2000 of the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, dated March 28, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 32 Annex 12. Submission of petition for writ of reversal on cassation, dated April 2, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010; Submission of petition for writ of reversal on cassation, dated April 24, 2001. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 33 Annex 14. Decision No. 00550-2001 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 34 Annex 14. Decision No. 00550-2001 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010. 35 Annex 14. Decision No. 00550-2001 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex to petitioner’s communication of February 28, 2010.