60. Finally, on August 17, 2004, the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, a collegiate court composed of the judges, LGBG, OWW and AMD, declared by the unanimous vote of the three judges in judgment No. 851-04 that Scot Cochran was responsible for the crimes of: “violation of the law on narcotics, psychotropic substances, drugs of unauthorized use, and related activities, under the heading of supplying minors, committed against public health […]; manufacture or production of pornography and dissemination of pornography, both committed to the detriment of [a number of minors]][…]; paid sexual relations with minors, and corruption”; all these crimes committed concurrently (en concurso material). Consequently, the defendant was sentenced to 154 years’ imprisonment, which, under the rules for concurrent crimes established in article 22 of the Criminal Code, resulted in 45 years’ imprisonment.91 61. The case file reveals that, when his residence was raided92 and when his initial statement was taken,93 Scot Cochran was offered a public defender, but he appointed private defense counsel. Also, he had at least five different private defense counsel before the trial stage began.94 Subsequently, at the trial stage, he appointed two new defense counsel,95 and at the appeal stage, he was represented by at least six lawyers.96 B. The system of appeals against the criminal judgment and the remedies filed B.1. Remedy of cassation 62. On September 6, 2004, Scot Cochran’s lawyers filed a remedy of cassation against the criminal judgment sentencing him to 45 years’ imprisonment. Subsequently, on October 5, 2004, the petitioner presented a documented entitled “cross-appeal for cassation.”97 Scot Cochran’s private defense counsel argued that there had been four formal errors regarding: the date of the alleged victim’s entry into the country; the lack of documents proving the identity of some of the victims; the absence of a psychosocial report on some of the victims, and the unreliability of several psychosocial reports. They also argued a substantial error in relation to the disregard, or erroneous application, of articles 21, 22, 74 and 75 of the Criminal Code, considering that there was a “concurso 91 Cf. Judgment No. 851-04 of the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José of August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 7363 to 7461). 92 Cf. Expansion of the report on the raid of Scot Cochran’s residence (evidence file, folio 7306). Cf. Record of preliminary statement before the Special Unit for Sexual Crimes and Domestic Violence of the Public Prosecution Service in San José dated January 20, 2003 (evidence file, folios 927 and 928). 93 Lawyer GP was appointed initially (evidence file, folio 42), and was then replaced by AGR (evidence file, folio 927), who was, in turn, replaced by lawyer APG on April 21, 2003 (evidence file, folio 1315); lawyer JMG was appointed co-defender with the latter on June 25, 2003 (evidence file, folio 1302). The former of these two renounced and was replaced by RGS (evidence file, folio 1397) and, subsequently, RQL was appointed co-defender on October 21, 2003 (evidence file, folio 3249). 94 95 Lawyers MCZ and MSB were appointed on May 28, 2004 (evidence file, folios 1719, 1727 and 1734). Layers MCZ and MSB filed the remedy of cassation (evidence file, folio 2039). Lawyer JCC filed an application for habeas corpus in favor of Scot Cochran (evidence file, folio 2322) and later filed an appeal for review (evidence file, folio 2343). He also had a public defender, FAH, for another of the appeals for review (evidence file, folios 24 and 29) and lawyer ABR for the last appeal before the Third Chamber (evidence file, folio 38). 96 97 Cf. Adhesion to the remedy of cassation filed by MCZ on behalf of Scot Cochran on October 5, 2004, against judgment No. 851-04 delivered by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 84 to 112). 18