172. On May 17, 2000, the Prosecutor’s Office of San Carlos brought charges and requested the opening of criminal proceedings against Rafael Rojas Madrigal for the crime of forgery and use of a false document in connection with fraud. 215 On November 22, 2000, the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, through decision N° 172-2000, acquitted Mr. Rojas Madrigal of the crime of forgery of documents, dismissed the charges of embezzlement, and sentenced him to a four-year prison term, considering him responsible for the crime of use of false document. 216 173. On December 18, 2000, Mr. Rojas filed an appeal in cassation against judgment N° 172-2000, alleging violations of due process. 217 On December 21, 2000, his defense filed another petition for a writ of reversal on cassation against judgment N° 172-2000, alleging inter alia, “illegitimate grounds for the sentence,” “erroneous assessment of the evidence” and “lack of intellectual evidentiary basis.” 218 174. On February 2, 2001, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter, “the Third Chamber”), in decision N° 2001-000122, declared Mr. Rojas’ cassation appeal inadmissible. It stated that “[…]the specific relevance of the alleged irregularities that he claims is not demonstrated, nor does he make a distinction between the arguments and the regulatory basis […] established in Article 445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure […]. The Third Chamber held that “what is being formulated [in this petition] is [his] disagreement with the final outcome of the trial […].” However, it admitted the first argument put forward in the petition filed by the defense regarding the sentence imposed, annulling that decision. 219 B.1.1.2. Second judgment N° 172-2000 and cassation appeals filed 175. On March 28, 2001, the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela again issued judgment N° 172-2000, in which it sentenced Mr. Rojas to a four-year prison term for the use of a false document in abuse of public office, considering that he “used two young men to make use of the deposit made illegally […].” 220 176. Mr. Rojas and his defense counsel filed appeals on April 2 and 24, 2001, respectively, against this judgment. Mr. Rojas alleged that: “the basis of the sentence [...] is not in accordance with the criteria of the crime for which he was sentenced […]. These descriptive [and] intellective actions do not correspond […] to the crime of use of false document but to the crime of fraud, for which I was […] acquitted in the trial […].” 221 For his part, his defense alleged: “illegitimate grounds in setting the sentence: […] the aforementioned flaw is produced [...] by imposing a four-year prison sentence for a crime [punishable] from one to six years, with the simple justification of describing the subjective and objective aspects of the punishable act [...]And [for] the fact that the accused used two youths [...], the [...] 215 Cf. Accusation of the Prosecutor’s Office of San Carlos within file 99-000136-065 PE, of May 17, 2000 (evidence file, folio 907). 216 Cf. Judgment No 172-2000 of the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of November 22, 2000 (evidence file, folio 960). 217 Cf. Writ of cassation, filed by Rafael Rojas against Judgment N° 172-2000 on December 18, 2000 (file evidence, folio 966). 218 Cf. Writ of cassation, filed by defense counsel Luis Fernando González against Judgment N° 172-2000, the 21 December 2000 (evidence file, folio 997). 219 Cf. Decision N° 2001-000122 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of February 2, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1012 and 1013). 220 Cf. Judgment No 172-2000 of the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, of March 28, 2001 (evidence file, folio 33476). 221 Cf. Appeal on cassation, filed by Rafael Rojas Madrigal against Judgment N° 172-2000, on April 2, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1016 and 1017). 58