judges forgetting that [...] in the facts accused and proven in the judgment [...], the accused was the one who made the deposit in the bank [...], without using any youths […].” 222 177. On June 8, 2001, in decision N° 00550-2001, the Third Chamber ruled on the cassation appeal filed by Mr. Rojas Madrigal’s defense counsel. It considered the sole motive contained in the cassation appeal to be admissible, given that “[...] the grounds for the sentence imposed are illegitimate and disproportionate [...]. It is evident that the trial court committed the same error [originally] pointed out” 223 by the Third Chamber in its decision N° 2001000122, of February 2, 2001, since it set the prison sentence higher than the minimum considering the “participation of two young people […], ignoring the fact that the actions of those youths took place within […] an act of fraud, a time-barred crime, and not the use of a false document, which is the punishable offense […].” 224 Consequently, the Third Chamber ordered the prison term to be reduced to three years, and since Mr. Rojas had no previous criminal record, it granted him the benefit of conditional execution of the sentence, ordering his immediate release. B.1.1.3. Appeals for review filed against judgment N° 172-2000 178. In August 2001, Mr. Rojas filed an appeal for review of judgment N° 172-2000, 225 in which argued, inter alia: i) that the crime of use of a false document was inapplicable, since it was an attempt; ii) failure to properly assess testimonial evidence; iii) lack of correlation between the charges and the conviction; iv) failure to notify him of the judgment, and v) use of false evidence by the trial court and lack of handwriting evidence in the case file. 226 On September 14, 2001, in decision N° 2001-00882, the Third Chamber declared the review proceeding inadmissible, considering that “[…] none of the grounds contain[ed] a single grievance, but rather several and of different types […] and lacked an autonomous legal basis […] in contravention of the first paragraph of Article 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires specific reference to the grounds on which it is based.” 227 179. On November 29, 2004, Mr. Rojas filed a brief before the Third Chamber in which he requested “[…] the withdrawal of every appeal for review filed against judgment N° 1722000, since [he] had not received any technical or legal support from the public defender [for] the proceedings […].” On February 2, 2005, the Third Chamber granted his request. 228 180. Between July and August 2005, Mr. Rojas filed two further motions for review of judgment N° 172-2000. 229 In the first, he indicated that due process was violated because Cf. Writ of cassation, presented by Luis Fernando González against Judgment 172-2000, on April 24, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1021, 1025 and 1026). 223 Cf. Decision N° 00550-2001 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of June 8, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1035 and 1036). 224 Cf. Decision 2001-000122 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 2, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1012). 225 The date on which the appeal was filed is not recorded in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, it was filed on August 24, 2001. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017, (merits file, folio 3396). In turn, the representatives affirmed that said motion was filed on August 14, 2001. Cf. Brief of the representatives of September 28, 2017, (merits file, folio 3501). 226 Cf. Decision N° 2001-00882 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of September 14, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1039). 227 Cf. Decision N° 2001-00882 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of September 14, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1040). 228 Cf. Notification from the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 23, 2005 (evidence file, folio 1042). Decision N° 2007—01177 of October 19, 2007, establishes that “several motions for review were filed by the defendant, […] however, in the two remaining motions the defendant himself withdrew them.” (evidence file, folio 1048). The Court does not have records of the proceedings mentioned. 229 The date on which the appeal was filed does not appear in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, the appeal was filed on July 12, 2005. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 222 59