accordance with the truth of the facts and are clear, coherent and consistent with the evidence […].” 410 293. This Court notes that in its decision of March 22, 2012, the Third Chamber ruled on all the reasons invoked in the cassation appeals by Mr. Rojas Madrigal and his defense counsel. Moreover, in the cassation of the judgment it did not limit itself to reviewing the reasoning of the lower court, but made its own assessment of the factual and evidentiary elements contained in the record of the criminal proceedings, as well as those that emerged from the appellants' allegations. Therefore, this Court concludes that Article 8(2) (h) of the Convention was not violated to the detriment of Mr. Rafael Rojas Madrigal, with respect to Case No. 02004656-0647-TP. 294. On July 17, 2009, Mr. Rojas filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his access to justice was restricted because “once the judgment [conviction] had been handed down and read out in its entirety, the court informed him that if he wanted a copy he should send someone to collect the CD […]. However he [had] not been able to see the video […] because in the [CAI] La Reforma they [did] not allow the entry of a CD.” On July 28, 2009, the Constitutional Chamber declared the appeal inadmissible, since “the appellant at no time stated that he had asked the prison authorities for the necessary means to hear the judgment and that this was denied to him […].” 411 295. Mr. Rojas Madrigal also filed a writ of habeas corpus on October 30, 2012 412 and a writ of amparo on January 21, 2013, 413 in which he stated that he did not file a motion for review against judgment No. 614-2009 because he “lacked access to the technology to view the decision that was contained in a compact disk.” The file does not contain information on the outcome of these writs of habeas corpus and amparo, and therefore this Court will not rule on the matter. B.1.3. Conclusion 296. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State did not violate Article 8(2)(h) in relation to Article 8(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Rafael Rojas Madrigal, since each of the claims filed through the appeals for cassation and motions for review were addressed by the Costa Rican courts that examined them through reasoned decisions. B.2. Regarding Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay (Group 3) File 02-000759-455-PE (international transportation of drugs) 297. On August 20, 2003, the Trial Court of the Southern Zone, Golfito, Puntarenas, sentenced Luis Archbold Jay and his brother Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay to twelve years of imprisonment for the crime of international drug transportation (supra para. 194). This sentence was issued in connection with the processing of what Costa Rican legislation defines 410 Cf. Decision No. 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 22, 2012 (evidence file, folios 33699, 33700, 33701, 33702 and 33704). 411 Cf. Decision No. 2009-011710 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of July 28, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1482 and 1485). 412 Cf. Brief submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal addressed to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 30, 2012. (evidence file, folio 1683). 413 Cf. Brief submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal addressed to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of January 21, 2013. (evidence file, folio 1692). 92