37 inadequate.231 That same day, Martín Rojas’ public defender filed a petition for reversal on cassation of the conviction alleging i) failure to precisely define the crime that the court found as proven in order to convict Mr. Rojas; ii) violation of due process on the grounds that the judgment of conviction was based on an imprecise charge; iii) the basis for the punishment is inadequate; iv) erroneous application of substantive law.232 147. On May 30, 2005, the Third Chamber denied the petitions for reversal on cassation.233 With regard to the arguments pertaining to establishing the crimes, the Third Chamber reiterated the view of the trial court in noting that “it is unanimously certain with regard to some of the crimes of charging document.”234 It also noted that “the crimes deemed proven (…) are supported in the evidence to sustain the guilt of the defendants.”235 148. The Commission notes that a public defender of Alajuela noted in a pleading that, after examining the judgment of conviction, the motion for review of conviction would be rendered out-oforder.236 He contended that the basis given by the court “is consistent and specific, the analysis of the facts is clear and it does not present contradictions or gaps.” He also argued that because the two petitions for reversal on cassation were denied it “limits [the] possibilities of defense (…) inasmuch as based on the rules in force as to admissibility of a motion for review of conviction, we cannot retrace our steps or re-allege arguments that have been previously ruled on by [the Third Chamber].”237 149. In a communication received on July 22, 2011, Guillermo Rodríguez filed a motion to review conviction before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.238 He alleged that review of his judgment of conviction is not possible, though it is provided for under the American Convention.239 He also contended that there was a due process violation on the grounds that i) the 231 Annex 112. Submission of Dora Camacho, public defender of Guillermo Rodríguez, dated January 17, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of September 20, 2006. 232 Annex 111. Submission of Alejandro Rechnitzer, public defender of Martín Rojas, dated January 17, 2005. Case File No. 04-002096-042-Pe. Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Extraordinary Matters of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. Investigation files. 292-301. 233 Annex 111. Decision No. 2005-00529 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 30, 2005. Case File No. 04-002096-042-Pe. Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Extraordinary Matters of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. Investigation files. Pages 318-332. 234 Annex 111. Decision No. 2005-00529 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 30, 2005. Case File No. 04-002096-042-Pe. Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Extraordinary Matters of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. Investigation files. Pages 318-332. 235 Annex 111. Decision No. 2005-00529 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated May 30, 2005. Case File No. 04-002096-042-Pe. Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Extraordinary Matters of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. Investigation files. Pages 318-332. 236 Annex 113. Undated submission of Óscar Rojas Herrera, public defender of Alajuela. Annex to petitioner’s communication of September 20, 2006. 237 Annex 113. Undated submission of Óscar Rojas Herrera, public defender of Alajuela. Annex to petitioner’s communication of September 20, 2006. 238 Annex 114. Submission filed by Guillermo Rodríguez to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated July 22, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 4, 2011. 239 Annex 114. Submission filed by Guillermo Rodríguez to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated July 22, 2011. Annex to petitioner’s communication of October 4, 2011.