B.3.5 Consolidation of convictions 220. On August 30, 2013, the Sentence Execution Court of San José merged two convictions issued against Mr. Martínez Meléndez: the first ordering 19 years of imprisonment for 12 counts of embezzlement in the modality of a continuous crime and the second ordering six years of imprisonment for the offense of libelous denunciation, for a total of 25 years. 311 B.4. Group 7: Miguel Mora Calvo 221. Miguel Mora Calvo was convicted, along with five other persons, for the crime of organization for national and international drug trafficking to the detriment of public health and sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment, in judgment No. 736-98 of September 24, 1998, issued by the Criminal Court of the first Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, in case 97000061-301-PE. 312 222. The judgment indicates that the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the defense and the accused “submitted to an abbreviated procedure,” 313 in which they agreed the following: “1. The defendants expressly accept the charges brought against them in the indictment […][;] 2. […] [A] prison sentence of […] seven and a half years was requested for Miguel Mora Calvo […and] 3. […]The objects and assets seized from the accused [would be] subject to confiscation, since they are the proceeds of drug trafficking.” Consequently, “[f]or the adjustment of the sentence, it was taken into consideration that the defendants, the defense and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, at the time of discussing the sentence, set the custodial sentence […] at seven and a half years for Miguel Mora Calvo […] and therefore the Court set it at this level, given that there were no reasons to vary what had been agreed upon, nor was it even raised by the defendants or their defense attorneys.” 314 223. An appeal in cassation was filed against the conviction, which was declared inadmissible in decision No. 0649-99 of the Third Chamber of May 28, 1999. 315 As indicated in said ruling, it was alleged: i) that the a-quo did not duly substantiate the challenged judgment as to the sentence imposed, and ii) the invalidity of the sentence because the Court had not complied with the time limits established to issue it. 316 The Third Chamber analyzed both claims and determined that “they are not admissible.” 317 (infra para. 333). 224. Subsequently five motions for review were filed against judgment No. 736-98 of September 24, 1998. 225. The first review procedure was declared inadmissible by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice through decision No. 2000-00917 of August 11, 2000. Mr. Mora alleged the “violation of due process since, being an abbreviated procedure, they were not warned of the constitutional right not to testify against themselves.” The Third Chamber made a mandatory consultation to the Constitutional Chamber, which, through decision No. 2000311 Cf. Decision No. 1064-2013 of the Sentence Execution Court of San José, of August 30, 2013 (evidence file, folio 26244). 312 Cf. Judgment No. 736-98 of the Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of September 24, 1998 (evidence file, folios 35492, 35606 and 35607). 313 See, arts. 373-375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No.7594 of April 10, 1996, in force as of January 1, 1998 (evidence file, folios 28400 and 28401). 314 Cf. Judgment No 736-98 of the Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of September 24, 1998 (evidence file, folios 35582 to 35583 and 35603). 315 Cf. Decision No. 0649-99 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 28, 1999 (evidence file, folio 35469). 316 Decision No. 0649-99 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 28, 1999 (evidence file, folios 35471 and 35472). 317 Cf. Decision No. 0649-99 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 28, 1999 (evidence file, folio 35473). 71