43 169. With regard to judgment No. 92-2002, on November 4, 2003, a motion for review of conviction was filed alleging failure to provide a basis for the punishment and improper application of the conduct to the criminal offense (tipificación).280 The motion was amended and expanded on January 12, 2004, alleging that illegal evidence and a search without a warrant of the court were introduced.281 170. On March 11, 2004, the Court of Criminal Cassation granted the motion for review of conviction.282 It held that “based on the analysis set forth in the judgment, it was proven that the defendant (…) impersonated an authority and with a weapon in hand threatened the three occupants of the vehicle (…) whom he forced to hand over to him all of the property they had on them.”283 171. On April 19, 2005, Mr. Vega filed a motion for review of conviction alleging that he was unable to enjoy his right to appeal judgment to a higher court and, therefore, it constituted a violation of Article 8.2.h of the Convention.284 On May 18, 2005, he also contended that his right to a defense was violated on the grounds that he had just then received the assistance of a public defender days after being arrested and taken into preventive detention.285 172. On October 12, 2005, the Court of Criminal Cassation denied the motion for review of conviction filed by Mr. Damas.286 With regard to the allegation of the violation of the right to appeal judgment, the Court of Criminal Cassation noted that he does not prove, “through the petition for writ of reversal on cassation, what the obstacle is that precludes him from contesting the facts or else proving improper assessment of the evidence.”287 With regard to the allegation on violation of the right to a defense, because he claims he was not assisted by a defender until after he was ordered to be placed in preventive detention, the Court of Criminal Cassation noted that based on the evidence in the case file, it is apparent that “he was always assisted by a technical defense expert.”288 It further noted that said aspect was never raised during the pretrial phase or at the preliminary hearing.289 280 Annex 134. Submission of motion for review of conviction, dated November 4, 2003. Case File No. 01-002231063PE1. Pages 67-70. Annex to petitioner’s submission of July 16, 2007. 281 Annex 134. Amendment and addition to motion for review of conviction, dated January 12, 2004. Case File No. 01002231-063PE1. Pages 74-82. Annex to petitioner’s submission of July 16, 2007. 282 Annex 134. Decision No. 2004-0232 of the Court of Criminal Cassation, dated March 11, 2004. Case File No. 01002231-063PE1. Pages 95-99. Annex to petitioner’s submission of July 16, 2007. 283 Annex 134. Decision No. 2004-0232 of the Court of Criminal Cassation, dated March 11, 2004. Case File No. 01002231-063PE1. Pages 95-99. Annex to petitioner’s submission of July 16, 2007. 284 Annex 134. Submission of motion for review of conviction, dated April 19, 2005. Case File No. 01-002231-063PE1. Pages 105-110. Annex to petitioner’s submission of July 16, 2007. 285 Annex 134. Case File No. 01-002231-063PE1. Pages 120-123. Annex to petitioner’s submission of July 16, 2007. 286 Annex 135. Decision No. 2005-1030 of the Court of Criminal Cassation, dated October 12, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of May 28, 2007. 287 Annex 135. Decision No. 2005-1030 of the Court of Criminal Cassation, dated October 12, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of May 28, 2007. 288 Annex 135. Decision No. 2005-1030 of the Court of Criminal Cassation, dated October 12, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of May 28, 2007. 289 Annex 135. Decision No. 2005-1030 of the Court of Criminal Cassation, dated October 12, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of May 28, 2007.