15 substantive law was correctly applied. (…) [The Third Chamber that heard the petition for writ of reversal on cassation] not only (…) did not prove what the specific relevance is of the alleged irregularities that are claimed, but neither did it make a distinction between the arguments and the support in the law which, under punishment of denial, the Code of Criminal Procedure (…) 45 establishes (…). 64. These two justices also noted that the principle of impartiality and objectivity of the court was violated, inasmuch as the same members who issued the conviction resentenced the petitioner when the case was sent back down to the trial court.46 65. On May 28, 2010, the Third Chamber ruled on a motion for review of conviction filed by Mr. Rojas pertaining to the decision of said Chamber to reduce his sentence to a three-year term.47 As for the argument of failure to assess his statement, the Third Chamber held that “even though his statement is not expressly examined in the judgment, his version of the facts was not supported in view of the rest of the evidence which refuted it.”48 With respect to the argument of failure to provide a basis, the Third Chamber noted that while the judgment does not say what witness version was adopted, “it can be deduced that the version that proved to be credible to the trier of fact is the one that concurred with another witness.”49 66. With regard to the argument of violation of the principle of judicial objectivity, the Third Chamber noted that it is untrue that the same judges who handed down the conviction had previously upheld the preventive detention.50 The allegation of preclusion from contesting the length of the prison term as set by the Third Chamber itself was accepted.51 The Third Chamber set aside decision No. 00550-2001 of June 8, 2001 and partially vacated decision No. 172-2000 of March 28, 2001, as to the length of the term of the jail sentence imposed. It noted that “because the judgment of guilt had not been modified (…), the defendant had no criminal record at the time of carrying out the proven act and for reasons of procedural economy, the jail term sentence is set (…) at one year.”52 2.1.2. Case File No. 99-0029291-042-PE 45 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. 46 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. 47 Annex 18. Decision No. 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 28, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 28, 2010. 48 Annex 18. Decision No. 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 28, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 28, 2010. 49 Annex 18. Decision No. 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 28, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 28, 2010. 50 Annex 18. Decision No. 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 28, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 28, 2010. 51 Annex 18. Decision No. 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 28, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 28, 2010. 52 Annex 18. Decision No. 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 28, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 28, 2010.