in effect, its quantum was based on erroneous facts. It also pointed out the aspects that the trial court omitted to consider, and therefore determined that the four-year sentence imposed was disproportionate, reduced it to three years, granted him the benefit of conditional discharge and ordered his immediate release. 396 Therefore, in view of the alleged inadequate reasoning of the court a quo, the Third Chamber addressed the claim by making its own assessment of the elements in the case file and justifying the imposition of a new sentence. 276. Third, faced with this new conviction, Mr. Rojas filed a motion for review of judgment in August 2001, in which he argued, among other reasons: i) improper criminal definition of the offense of use of a false document, given that it was an attempt; ii) failure to properly assess the testimonial evidence; iii) lack of correlation between indictment and judgment; iv) failure to notify him of the judgment, and v) and the trial court relied on false evidence and there is no handwriting evidence in the file. 397 In examining the matter, in decision 200100882 of September 14, 2001, the Third Chamber declared the proceeding inadmissible under a formalistic criterion and without considering the issues raised by the appellant, finding that “none of the grounds contained a single grievance, but several and of a diverse nature; [...] lacking an autonomous legal basis, [...] in violation of [...] Article 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires specific reference to the grounds on which it is based.” 398 277. Subsequently, between July and August 2005, Mr. Rojas filed two other motions for review, in which he alleged, among other things: i) violation of due process for alleged failure to observe the principle of correlation between indictment and sentence, ii) that he was denied the opportunity to appeal the judgment in second instance, and iii) that his statement was not evaluated at trial (supra para. 180). On October 19, 2007, the Third Chamber dismissed the appeal through decision 2007-01177. Regarding the first point, it is clear that the court compared the facts presented both in the indictment and in the facts considered proven, finding consistency between them. Regarding the second and third points, the Third Chamber considered that the right to appeal the judgment was guaranteed through the cassation appeals declared partially admissible (supra para. 181). In this regard, as already stated, when deciding the appeal filed by Mr. Rojas' defense counsel in December 2000 (supra para. 173), the Third Chamber did not carry out a substantial analysis of the evidence offered in the proceedings in order to reach its own conclusion as to the reasons why the appellant's statement was not given evidentiary value. On this occasion, it merely reiterated that “a simple reading of the judgment shows that the evidence for the prosecution is so abundant and allows for a degree of certainty that even a hypothetical assessment [of his statement] would not modify or weaken the level of certainty that serves as a platform for the conviction.” 399 The court did not specify the nature of the evidence or what its evidentiary value would be. Therefore, through this appeal, it failed to remedy the lack of a comprehensive review of this point. 278. However, and fourth, the case file clearly shows that between February and March 2007, Mr. Rojas filed two special motions for review against his conviction, based on transitory Cf. Decision N° 00550-2001 of June 8, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1035 to 1036). “[…]the first plea alleges that the crime of use of false documents is mischaracterized; that it was only an attempt; that two hours had not elapsed since his action when the judicial police had seized the deposited check [therefore] the facts did not materialize [...]. The second plea alleges that there was no correlation between indictment and sentence; that due process was not respected [...].In the third plea he indicates that the court did not allow him to defend himself, because he was not notified of the ruling [...] [and] he appealed the sentence blindly. Finally, he claims that the court and the prosecutor relied on false evidence [...]; that a simple photocopy was taken into account, with no legal value because it was not certified [...].” (evidence file, folios 1039 and 1040). 398 Cf. Decision N° 2001-00882 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of September 14, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1040). 399 Cf. Decision N° 2007-01177 of October 19, 2007 (evidence file, folios 1046 to 1048 and 1050). 396 397 87