as an “abbreviated procedure.” According to the provisions of Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at that time, it was established that “at any time prior to the opening of the trial, the application of the abbreviated procedure may be proposed when: a) the accused acknowledges the act attributed to him and consents to the application of this procedure […].” 414 In this specific case, the alleged victims at the time agreed to the abbreviated procedure of their “own free and spontaneous will,” accepted the description of the facts provided by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and agreed to a 12-year sentence, as shown in the record of the respective preliminary hearing. 415 298. On October 31, 2003, Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay initiated a process to review their conviction arguing that: “the judgment lacks logical consistency, there [was] no correlation between the accusation and the evidence gathered, […] inasmuch as […] the alleged facts […] occurred on the high seas and the judge omitted to refer to the evidence in order to consider [these] proven facts in the judgment as accredited, […] the fact that they availed themselves of an abbreviated process does not prevent the judge from analyzing the evidence […] [and] making reference to the location [where] according to the naval reports […] drug packages were thrown into the sea, since this determines whether national or international legislation is applied and, in addition, this situation affects the chain of custody of the drugs […].” 416 299. On April 15, 2004, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, through decision No. 2004-0336, declared the motion for review admissible, considering that “the trial judge simply cited the elements of evidence that were admitted (descriptive substantiation) and mainly based on the acceptance of the charges by the defendants; he did not make the intellectual substantiation of the evidence, [...] [and] the fact that Article 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that the judgment must be succinct does not entitle the lower court to disregard the analysis of the evidence included in the proceedings in accordance with the rules of sound judgment.” 417 For these reasons, it annulled the judgment of first instance and ordered that it be re-issued. Thus, this Court concludes that, on this occasion, the review procedure was an effective means to review the criminal conviction. 300. On June 14, 2004, the Trial Court of the Southern Zone issued a new judgment 418 in which it again convicted the defendants and sentenced them to a 12-year prison term for the crime of international transportation of drugs. The court considered proven the prosecution's Article 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Costa Rica. Likewise, Article 374 of said Code provides that: “the Public Prosecutor's Office, the complainant and the accused [...] shall express their desire to apply the abbreviated procedure and shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the law. The Public Prosecutor's Office and the complainant, if applicable, shall formulate the accusation if they have not already done so, which shall contain a description of the conduct attributed and its legal classification; and they shall request the penalty to be imposed. For such purposes, the minimum penalty established for the criminal offense may be reduced by up to one third.” Finally, section 375 of the Code establishes that: “Once the proceedings have been completed, the court will issue a sentence, unless it previously deems it appropriate to hear the parties and the victim of known domicile in an oral hearing. In its decision, the court may reject the abbreviated procedure and, in this case, resubmit the case for ordinary proceedings or issue the appropriate ruling. […] if convicted, the sentence imposed may not exceed that required by the prosecution. The sentence shall contain the requirements set forth in the Code, in a succinct manner, and may be appealed in cassation.” Version available in the Costa Rican Legal Information System at: http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_text_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1= 1&nValor2=41297&nValor3=107536&param2=2&strTipM=TC&lResultado=14&strSim=simp 415 Cf. Judgment 2006-1107 of October 20, 2006 (evidence file, folios 33759 to 33760). 416 Cf. Decision No. 2004-0336 (file 03-000021-0008-PE) of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of April 15, 2004, (evidence file, folios 33732 to 33735). 417 Cf. Decision No. 2004-0336 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of April 15, 2004, (evidence file, folios 33732 to 33735). 418 Cf. Judgment No. 68-2004, issued by the Trial Court of the Southern Zone, Golfito, on June 14, 2004 (evidence file, folios 33774 to 33787). 414 93