324. From the analysis of decision No. 2008-00232, it is clear that the Third Chamber conducted a detailed analysis of the factual and legal arguments made by the appellant, inasmuch as it compared the facts invoked by that party against those taken as proven by the trial court, and analyzed the sufficiency of the evidence and the correct application of the law by the latter. B.3.2. Motion for review 325. Subsequently, Mr. Martínez filed a motion for review of his conviction of July 17, 2007. In the sole plea, he alleged that the reasons given for his sentence were flawed, inasmuch as: “a) the 19-year prison term imposed by the trial court is not consistent with the rehabilitative objective of the sanction; b) the principle of proportionality, reasonableness, equality and suitability of the punishment was overlooked […] and, based on assessments made of him at the prison where he [is] being held, the purpose [of the sentence] has already been achieved, after eight years of imprisonment, and therefore [...] it is disproportionate; c) in determining the sentence, the [trial] court violated the right to asylum [...], and d) [...] violation of the rules governing continuing offenses, specifically Article 77 of the Criminal Code [...which] states that the sentence imposed, in the case of a continuing offense, may be increased by a further amount, which does not imply that the minimum and maximum sentences are doubled, as erroneously interpreted [and he] thus requests [...] that a lower sentence be imposed on him. 466 326. On August 29, 2012, in decision No. 2012-001297, 467 the Third Chamber declared the said proceeding inadmissible, stating in relation to points a), b) and c) that, according to Article 411 of the CCP: “When the claim has been filed outside the hypotheses that authorize it or is manifestly unfounded, the court, ex officio, shall declare it inadmissible. [...] It shall not be admissible to raise, by way of review, matter that have already been discussed and settled through an appeal or in cassation […]. The arguments made by Jorge Martínez Meléndez, referring to the grounds for the sentence, are based on personal assessments that do not contain legal criteria to be considered, since aspects such as the fact that the sentence has already served its rehabilitative purpose, that he was given a longer sentence than other persons tried for the same crime, […] are aspects that have no place in this venue, since they do not fall within the scope of the review proceeding. [...] In addition, the grounds for the penalty issued by the trial court were already known and assessed by this Chamber [in cassation], in the decision [...] of March 11, 2008.” 327. Regarding the way in which the trial court applied the penalty for the continuing offense, that is, paragraph d) of the sole ground, the Third Chamber indicated that: “the claim is manifestly inadmissible, since the constant jurisprudence of this Chamber has indicated that […] Article 77 of the Criminal Code establishes that when concurrent crimes are of the same type and affect patrimonial legal assets, provided that the agent pursues the same purpose, the penalty established for the most serious offense shall be applied, increased by up to the same amount. In various rulings of this Chamber, it has been stated that the correct way to set the penalty when the existence of a continuing offense has been previously established is as follows: the abstract penalty is taken as a parameter (in its lower and upper limits) and doubled, and once this operation has been carried out, the Court sets the Cf. Decision No. 2012-001297 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 29, 2012 (evidence file, folio 34036). 467 Cf. Decision No. 2012-001297 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 29, 2012 (evidence file, folios 34034 to 34044). 466 106