411. Third, in 2005 Mr. Rojas filed two motions for review against the second judgment 172-2000, which were decided by a single ruling on October 19, 2007, 582 including by Judge Jesús Ramírez, who had been among the judges of the Third Chamber that declared inadmissible the motion for review filed in August 2001, and admitted the request for withdrawal of November 2004 (supra paras. 178, 179 and 409). Subsequently, between February and March 2007, Mr. Rojas filed a special motion for review against the second judgment 172-2000, based on Transitory Provision I of Law 8503. 583 This special review was decided by Judge María Elena Gómez C., among other judges. In addition, on August 12, 2008, 584 Mr. Rojas initiated another review procedure, which was heard, inter alia, by Judges José Manuel Arroyo and Jesús Ramírez, and decided on October 29, 2010. 585 Judges María Elena Gómez, José Manuel Arroyo and Jesús Ramírez formed part of the composition of the Third Chamber that accepted the withdrawal of the motion for review filed by Rafael Rojas in November 2004. 586 However, as already stated, since they did not rule on substantive issues on that occasion, the participation of these judges in hearing new motions for review did not imply a breach of their impartiality. 412. Fourth, this Court notes that the Judge Jesús Ramírez also heard the aforementioned motions for review filed in 2005 and 2008 by Mr. Rojas (supra paras. 180 and 185). In the motions filed in 2005, Mr. Rojas alleged that his right to due process was violated, due to the alleged failure to observe the principle of correlation between indictment and sentence. He alleged that the indictment did not describe the specific circumstances of the crimes of use of a false document and forgery, and that, in view of the statute of limitations of one of the crimes, the prosecutor decided to start the case for a new offense but without extending the indictment. In this regard, in decision No. 2007-01177 the Third Chamber declared the motion inadmissible, among other reasons, because: It was not necessary to extend any indictment, since if this part did not coincide with the facts considered proven, it was only to benefit the accused, in the sense that one of the facts in the accusation could not be taken as true. Likewise, [...] both the indictment and the list of proven facts contain an adequate and sufficient description of the act for which the defendant was charged and for which he was convicted [...]. 587 413. In the motion for review filed in 2008, the only reason stated was the alleged violation of due process, since “[he] was not notified of or charged with the acts [committed] to the detriment of the public interest […] during the investigation stage.” This motion was declared inadmissible based on Article 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that in the review phase, claims that are manifestly unfounded shall be inadmissible. On October 29, 582 Cf. Decision No. 2007-01177 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 19, 2007 (evidence file, folio 1045). The date on which the appeals were filed does not appear in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, the first appeal was filed on July 12, 2005. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017 (merits file, folio 3396). In turn, the representatives stated that the appeal was filed on August 1, 2005. Cf. Brief of the representatives of September 28, 2017, (merits file, folio 3502). Regarding the second appeal, the evidence shows that “[...] by resolution of 8:10 a.m. on October 28, 2005, this Chamber ordered the joinder of a second review proceeding filed by the convicted person […]”582 Cf. Decision No. 200701177 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 19, 2007 (evidence file, folio 1046). 583 Cf. Decision No. 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of May 28, 2010 (evidence file, folios 33581 and 33588). 584 The date on which the appeal was filed is not recorded in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, it was filed on August 12, 2008. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017, Table 2 (merits file, folio 3396). 585 Cf. Decision No. 2010-01205 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 29, 2010 (evidence file, folio 33589). 586 Cf. Notification card of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 23, 2005 (evidence file, folio 1042). 587 Cf. Decision No. 2007-01177 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 19, 2007 (evidence file, folios 1045-1050). 129