189. Mr. Rojas Madrigal filed a writ of habeas corpus 246 against that ruling, which the Constitutional Chamber declared inadmissible in decision No. 2012-012366 of September 4, 2012. 247 In dismissing the appeal, the Constitutional Chamber upheld the decision contained in judgment No. 2012-011508, and declared without merit an action of unconstitutionality filed against the Third Chamber’s interpretation of transitory provision III of Law 8837. 248 B.1.2.2. Other appeals filed by Rafael Rojas Madrigal 190. On January 6, 2008, Mr. Rojas filed a writ of habeas corpus against the Legislative Assembly, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and the President of the Third Chamber of the same court requesting that “[…] the respondents be obliged [to] include in the legal system […] a remedy of appeal, in order to comply with the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention […]. He argued that Law No. 8503 did not comply with what was ordered in […] the [Herrera Ulloa] case […].” On January 30, 2009, the Constitutional Chamber considered that discussion of whether or not Law 8503 complied with the requirements of the Inter-American Court corresponded to this Court, and therefore declared the appeal inadmissible. 249 191. On July 17, 2009, Mr. Rojas filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Chamber against the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, arguing that “once the judgment was issued and read in its entirety, the Court told him that if he wanted a copy he had to send someone for the CD or else he could access [the] Judicial Branch data system […], [and he] has not been able to view the video to technically compare the judgment because in […]La Reforma prison [where he was incarcerated,] he was not allowed to bring in the CD […].” 250 On July 28, 2009, the Constitutional Chamber dismissed the appeal based on the statements of Judge IGR of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, who affirmed that “the judgment […] was heard in full by the defendant.” In addition, the Chamber considered that “the appellant at no time stated that he had asked the prison authorities for the necessary means to hear [it].” 251 This appeal is not contained in the case file. Cf. Decision No. 2012012366 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of September 4, 2012. (evidence file, folio 1678). 248 The action of unconstitutionality alleged that the phrase “Under penalty of inadmissibility the grievance must be specifically described” of Transitory Provision III of Law 8837 was unconstitutional. In this regard, the Chamber considered that "it is necessary to specify the injury suffered, and that all the intervening parties in the proceeding solidly substantiate their requests. The requirement contained in Transitory Provision III of Law 8837 is intended to avoid an empty and merely formal argument in which it was alleged that there was not a sufficient mechanism for a comprehensive review of the judgment, or to avoid the identification of alleged grievances without specifying their content. This purpose cannot be categorized as a requirement that violates the accessibility of such an important guarantee as the right to challenge.” Cf. Decision No. 2012011508 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of August 22, 2012. Available from the Costa Rican Legal Information System:http://jurisprudencia.poderjudicial.go.cr/SCIJ_PJ/busqueda/jurisprudencia/jur_Documento.aspx?param 1=Ficha_Sentencia&param2=1&tem1=003274&nValor1=1&nValor2=638424&param7=0&strTipM=T&lResultado =7&strLib=LIB. 249 Cf. Decision No. 2009-001350 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of January 30, 2009. (evidence file, folios 1700, 1702 and 1704). 250 Cf. Decision No. 2009-011710 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 28, 2009. (evidence file, folio 1482). 251 Cf. Decision No. 2009-011710 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 28, 2009. (evidence file, folio 1485). 246 247 63