340. The Court of Criminal Cassation, through decision No. 2009-00225 of June 12, 2009, determined that “[t]he attempted motion for review is manifestly unfounded” and declared it inadmissible, based on the following: “What is expressed therein is an open disagreement with the system of challenges established by our [CCP] against convictions, a matter that is outside the grounds that, pursuant to Article 408 ibid, allows this Court of Criminal Cassation to review convictions that have already become final. This same issue had already been the subject of another motion for review filed by the accused […], which was decided in ruling N° 2008-00557 by the First Section of this same Court of Cassation. [Transcribed what was resolved in the aforementioned decision (supra para. 229)]. The appellant seeks a review of the conviction [...], based on the same arguments [...], but alleging new evidence; however, what he offers as new evidence (documentary and testimonial [...]) is not really evidence that would be relevant in relation to any of the grounds for review established in the aforementioned Article 408, but rather refers to the allegation that was already considered manifestly unfounded […].” 482 341. As can be seen, the Court of Cassation analyzed the arguments submitted by the appellant, and indicated the reasons for which it considered that the motion was inadmissible. It also analyzed the evidence provided by the appellant and decided that it was related to his alleged disagreement with the appeals system, and therefore considered that there were no new relevant facts. Thus, this Court considers that it is not appropriate to declare a violation of the Convention in relation to the fourth and fifth motions mentioned above. 342. Now, separately from the aforementioned criminal proceeding, Mr. Mora filed a writ of amparo on May 23, 2005, challenging three judgments issued against him in three different criminal cases, including the judgment of September 24, 1998, which is before this Court. Among other reasons, Mr. Mora argued that his right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court was violated, “since, according to the judgment […in the case of] Herrera Ulloa […] a judgment that is final without the benefit of a remedy of Article 8(2) (h) of the [Convention], violates a norm of constitutional rank […].” 483 343. In this regard, through decision No. 2005-06480 of May 31, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber “flatly reject[ed]” the writ of amparo, with the following arguments: “[I]t is not for this specialized Court [...] to act as an appellate court in this matter, to assess the terms of the judgments in question, or to analyze the appraisal of the evidence that the trial judge may have made in order to consider the existence of the crime charged and his participation therein as proven, since this would imply encroaching on the jurisdiction of the criminal courts, which is constitutionally reserved to the corresponding judges [...]. If the appellant believes that during the processing of said criminal proceedings or in the issuance of the criminal conviction against him, there were violations of due process, such issues must be raised [...] through the process of review of judgment, which (sic) must be filed before the competent judicial authority, [...] without prejudice to this Chamber defining the content, conditions, and scope of said principle, by means of the mandatory judicial consultation […].” 484 344. Finally, Mr. Mora filed a writ of habeas corpus on December 28, 2005, “on the grounds that [he was] being illegally deprived of his liberty,” because his convictions had not been subject to a full review, since the cassation appeal to which he had access did not meet the requirements of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. 485 The Constitutional Chamber, through decision No. 2006-000052 of January 6, 2006, rejected the motion considering that: “[t]he problem raised by the appellant has already been extensively analyzed by this Chamber, Cf. Decision No. 2009-00225 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of June 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 35490 and 35491). 483 Cf. Writ of amparo of May 23, 2005 (evidence file, folio 20620). 484 Cf. Decision No. 2005-06480 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of May 31, 2005, (evidence file, folios 20625 and 20626). 485 Cf. Writ of habeas corpus of December 28, 2005 (evidence file, folio 20629) 482 111