corresponding penalty, placing it in the new scale. Therefore, the Court's reasoning [...] is consistent with the prevailing jurisprudential line [...]” 328. In this regard, this Court considers that the Third Chamber decided the inadmissibility of the motion for review filed by Mr. Martínez Meléndez by evaluating each aspect of the single argument raised, in accordance with the applicable legislation and jurisprudence. This analysis shows that these grievances were indeed raised and duly studied in the cassation appeals resolved by the Third Chamber itself, or that they were pleas alleging the incorrect application of a rule whose jurisprudential application allowed the Third Chamber to rule out, prima facie or without entering into a substantive study, an error in the grounds for the sentence. Therefore, it is not appropriate to declare, with respect to this appeal, a violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. B.3.3. Conclusion 329. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State did not violate Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Jorge Martínez Meléndez. B.4. Regarding Miguel Mora Calvo (Group 7) File 97-000061-301-PE (organization for international and domestic drug trafficking to the detriment of public health) B.4.1. Appeal in cassation 330. Miguel Mora Calvo and his defense counsel filed an appeal in cassation against his criminal conviction of September 24, 1998, which the Third Chamber declared inadmissible. Subsequently, Mr. Mora and his defense counsel filed five motions for review, which were declared inadmissible by the Third Chamber and by the Court of Criminal Cassation, respectively. Mr. Mora also filed a writ of amparo and a writ of habeas corpus. 331. First, this Court notes that the cassation appeal filed was resolved by the Third Chamber through decision No. 0649-99 of May 28, 1999. In this appeal, it was argued that: i) the lower court did not duly substantiate the contested judgment as to the sentences imposed on the convicted defendants Mora Calvo and LC, and ii) “the judgment should be annulled for the untimely deliberation and sentencing in the abbreviated procedure [...],” since it considered that the trial court did not comply with the time limits established for issuing the judgment. 468 In its decision, the Third Chamber considered each of the points raised and determined that “the claims [were] untenable.” With respect to the first argument, it listed the factors taken into consideration by the trial court in setting the sentence and, in addition, considered “the information offered as evidence [at the time]” by the appellants, in order to establish that these would not affect the sentence. 469 As to the second argument, it 468 Cf. Decision No. 0649-99 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of May 28, 1999 (evidence file, folio 35471). 469 The Third Chamber stated that: “Regarding the lack of grounds for the punishment, it should be noted that, considered as an integral structure, the sentence provides the necessary support to impose the sanction, since the a-quo not only considered the free and spontaneous manifestation of those who sought the abbreviated procedure, but also and with respect to each defendant, supported the decision regarding the telephone tapping, the seizure of the contents of the communications made via radio-locators ("beepers"), police reports and 107