42 165. On March 9, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber outright denied the petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Mr. Vega.271 The Constitutional Chamber held that “possible disagreements or differences of opinion that may arise with regard to proper processing of a review of judgment of conviction are not properly settled in this court.” It found that if Mr. Vega meant that he was unable to exercise the right to appeal a judgment to a higher court, “that involves an object properly addressed in a criminal court.”272 166. Additionally, on April 15, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber outright denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on April 13 that year with regard to the inability to exercise the right to file a motion to appeal the convictions.273 The Constitutional Chamber noted that the judgment “may not be contested in any way in this court.”274 On April 29, that year, the Constitutional Chamber fully denied the petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Mr. Vega on April 26 that year, on the same grounds as in the prior ruling it issued.275 167. On June 14, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber flatly denied the petition for constitutional relief on amparo filed by Mr. Vega on June 6, 2005, as it pertained to the violation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention.276 The Constitutional Chamber noted that “the principle of the right to appeal a judgment before a higher court has been satisfied with the extraordinary remedy of the writ of cassation.” On June 28, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber also outright denied another petition for writ of amparo relief pertaining to the violation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention toting that “this Chamber does not constitute another body within the established criminal procedure.”277 168. On January 30, 2006, Mr. Vega filed a motion for review of conviction alleging that i) he was not involved in the crimes; ii) illegal evidence was used; and iii) the basis for the conviction was improper.278 On June 7, 2006, the Third Chamber granted the motion based on the arguments of a due process violation of illegal evidence and erroneous application of substantive law.279 8.1.2. Judgment No. 92-2002 271 Annex 129. Decision No. 2005-02583 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated March 9, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 1, 2005. 272 Annex 129. Decision No. 2005-02583 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated March 9, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 1, 2005. 273 Annex 130. Decision No. 2005-04055 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated April 15, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 1, 2005. 274 Annex 130. Decision No. 2005-04055 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated April 15, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 1, 2005. 275 Annex 131. Decision 2005-05080 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated April 29, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 1, 2005. 276 Annex 132. Decision No. 2005-07329 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 14, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of June 21, 2006. 277 Annex 133. Decision No. 2005-08252 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 28, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of June 21, 2006. 278 Annex 127. Submission of motion for review of conviction, dated January 30, 2006. Case File No. 99-000506062PE. Pages 832-867. Annex to petitioner’s submission of July 16, 2007. 279 Annex 134. Decision No. 2006-00529 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 7, 2006. Case File No. 99-000506-062PE. Pages 882-888. Annex to petitioner’s submission of July 16, 2007.