01898,23 2004-03158,24 2004-03926,25 2004-00783,26 2004-05187,27 2004-10125,28 2004-11324,29 2005-01676,30 2005-02002,31 2010-015970,32 and 2011-017126.33 In addition, ten applications for amparo were filed, which were decided by Rulings: 2003- 23 Filed on February 23, 2004, against the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, arguing that the alleged victim was suffering from a terminal illness and therefore a less burdensome measure should be imposed pursuant to article 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Constitutional Chamber considered that, basically, the applicant disagreed with the decision extending his pre-trial detention, a matter that had already been heard and decided in Ruling 2004-01184. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/ document/sen-1-0007-263890 Filed on March 4, 2004, against the Minister of Justice, and the Department of Social Adaptation. The Constitutional Chamber admitted the arguments of these authorities and gave special significance to the visit made by the investigating magistrate who verified that none of the alleged victim’s rights were being violated, and therefore decided to declare the remedy unfounded. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/ document/sen-1-0007-266028 24 25 Filed on April 12, 2004, against the Minister of Justice, the Director General of Social Adaptation, and the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, and also against the Director General and the Medical Director of the La Reforma Institutional Penal Center, arguing physical and mental deterioration due to placement in the prison system. The Constitutional Chamber noted that the facts alleged by Scot Cochran had already been examined during a previous application for habeas corpus (2004-03158) and that the alleged victim was in acceptable conditions; it therefore decided to ratify the ruling made in the previous application. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-266335 26 Filed on January 27, 2004, against the deputy director of La Reforma Institutional Penal Center, because he had written to the National Criminology Institute seeking to relocate the applicant. The Chamber rejected the remedy because his transfer had not been ordered; it was merely a request to authorize this. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-276471 27 Filed on May 12, 2004, against Director of the Clinic of La Reforma Institutional Penal Center and the Minister of Justice and Mercy, based on the same arguments as the remedy filed on April 12, 2004, and decided in Ruling 2004-03926. It was verified that the applicant had received treatment and was receiving on-going treatment for his ailment; therefore the application was rejected. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-273086 Filed on September 2, 2004, against the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José and the Public Prosecution Service of San José, for failing to allow access to certain acts and elements of the evidence file. The Constitutional Chamber noted that the applicant’s defense had had access to the evidence against him at all procedural stages and, therefore, declared the remedy unfounded. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-290925 28 Filed on October 7, 2004, against the of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, repeating the arguments of the preceding remedy. Therefore, the Chamber declared it unfounded, reiterating the facts decided in Ruling 2004-1012543, which had already been analyzed. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-291665 29 Filed on February 17, 2005, against the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José. The Constitutional Chamber indicated that it had already examined the arguments submitted during an application for habeas corpus that had been admitted; therefore, it was inappropriate to process another remedy, and the file was closed. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-306972 30 Filed on February 12, 2005, against the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, arguing that, despite the remedy of cassation filed (which was being heard by the Third Chamber) the Trial Court, without jurisdiction, had extended the pre-trial detention; therefore, the alleged victim’s immediate release was requested. The Constitutional Chamber considered that the measure was reasonable, confirmed that the Trial Court was competent to extend the pre-trial detention, and declared the remedy unfounded. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-303316 31 32 Filed on September 11, 2010, against Transitory Provision III of Law 8837; however, the Constitutional Chamber considered that an application for habeas corpus was unsuited to attack elements of the law that were possibly unconstitutional. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007492846 Filed on December 7, 2011, against the Special Criminal Court of San José, requesting a review of the criminal proceedings; however, the Constitutional Chamber indicated that the arguments did not relate to a matter that could be examined in that jurisdiction; rather they were the responsibility of the Third Chamber, and it therefore rejected the remedy. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-10007-530280 33 11