explained the options available to the trial court as to how to read the judgment, reviewed the trial court’s approach and specified the reasons why it considered that there was no prejudice to the interests of the parties. 470 B.4.2. Motions for review 332. Mr. Mora subsequently filed five motions for review at different times against judgment No. 736-98 of September 24, 1998. In the first motion for review, he alleged the “violation of due process since, being an abbreviated procedure, they were not advised of their constitutional right not to testify against themselves.” 471 In this regard, in decision No. 200000917 of August 11, 2000, the Third Chamber stated that due to the alleged violation of due process, the corresponding legal consultation was made and was evaluated by the Constitutional Chamber, which declared that “the lack of the warning contained in (sic) Article 36 of the Constitution by the sentencing court, in abbreviated proceedings, does not constitute an infringement of due process.” Accordingly, the Third Chamber concluded that since “the purpose of the review proceeding was limited to the alleged breach of the fundamental right of the defendant not to testify against himself and that in the case of abbreviated procedures, such a warning does not apply, it is appropriate to declare the motion for review inadmissible.” 472 In this regard, this Court notes that the petitioners did not submit the aforementioned decision of the Constitutional Chamber, and therefore it is not known whether it was explained to the appellant why the lack of warning does not constitute a violation of due process. Thus, this Court does not have sufficient elements to determine whether the response provided by the Third Chamber lacked sufficient grounds. 333. In his second motion for review, Mr. Mora again argued “the flawed reasoning for the amount of the sentence.” In decision No. 2007-00546 of October 5, 2007, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela declared the motion inadmissible because it considered that the argument of “the alleged existence of flaws in the grounds for the quantum of the sentence had already been heard and decided by the Third Chamber […] monitoring, movements of money and transfers, as well as the seizure of drugs. Undoubtedly, the guilt established with such a body of evidence was the basis not only for declaring the guilt of the convicted persons, but also served as support for imposing the prison sentences. As can be seen, the defendants and their defense attorneys agreed both with the procedural alternative proposed and with the prosecutor as to the length of the sentence to be imposed: seven years and six months in prison for Miguel Mora Calvo [...]. The information they now offer as trial elements simply describes the personal data of their clients, which by itself, hypothetically included in the reasoning of the judge, would not change the sentence imposed, Thus, since the claim lacks merits, it is dismissed.” Cf. Decision No. 0649-99 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of 28 May 1999, (evidence file, folio 35473). 470 The Third Chamber established: “[…] In the case at hand, the alleged flaw is not apparent. First, because at the time the request for an abbreviated procedure was accepted, the parties were warned by the court that the full reading of the judgment would be notified at the end of the common trial against the other defendants [...] and none of them objected to the procedure. This suggests that they accepted the scope of the ruling. As stated, it is true that the court deferred the full reading of the judgment of the abbreviated procedure and it is also true that it immediately proceeded with the hearings necessary to complete the trial with respect to the defendants who did not agree with the abbreviated procedure. From the record of the proceedings, it cannot be deduced that the Court disregarded the rules of deliberation, drafting and reading of the judgment. In view of the request to abbreviate the proceeding, the a-quo could have ordered its complete resolution immediately or resolve it - as it did in this case - together with the decision of the common trial, or reserve the request to define it after having heard the ordinary proceeding. In this way, no prejudice is caused to the interests of the parties.” Cf. Decision No. 0649-99 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of May 28, 1999, (evidence file, folio 35473). 471 Cf. Decision No. 2000-00917 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of August 11, 2000, (evidence file, folio 35477). 472 Cf. Decision No. 2000-00917 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of August 11, 2000 (evidence file, folio 35477). 108