“he did not have an opportunity to appeal the judgment in a court of second instance.” In the second, he alleged the violation of due process owing to the non-observance of the principle of correlation between indictment and sentence; that the judgment was negligent regarding the evaluation of his statement; that his right to be notified was violated; that the witnesses he offered in the oral trial were intimidated by members of the court; that he was denied the right to testify during the preliminary hearing, and that his version of the facts was not evaluated at trial. 181. On October 19, 2007, in decision N° 2007-01177, the Third Chamber denied the motion for review of the conviction, considering that the judgment in the case of Herrera Ulloa, “does not create the obligation to provide a means to appeal a judgment to a higher judge or court, but rather a remedy that allows for a comprehensive review of the judgment […], [and that] this right to a full examination of the judgment [was] asserted when the two appeals on cassation were filed and declared partially admissible […].” 230 182. Between February and March 2007, Mr. Rojas filed two motions for special review 231 against the second judgment 172-2000, based on transitory provision I of Law 8503. In the first motion he alleged that: i) his statement was not assessed; ii) the court considered a fact to be true based on the statement of a witness who could not substantiate that fact; iii) a witness gave different versions, without the court clarifying which one was credible and why, and iv) the judges who handed down the conviction were the same ones who had previously confirmed the pretrial detention of the accused. In the second motion, he alleged that the “court that had previously heard [the matter] and found the accused guilty […] also decided on the sentence to be handed down […]. Moreover, [in resolving the new cassation appeal], the Cassation Chamber directly established the sentence, preventing any possibility of appealing that decision […].” 232 183. On May 28, 2010, the Third Chamber, in decision No. 2010-00544, 233 upheld the claim of violation of the principle of objectivity, stating that “the Chamber, when deciding the cassation appeal, directly set the sentence at three years of imprisonment, higher than the one-year minimum term established in Article 365 of the Criminal Code, and prevented the appellant from appealing the quantum of the sentence […].” 184. Consequently, it declared decision No. 00550-2001 invalid and declared the second judgment No. 172-2000 partially invalid, issued by the Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela in relation to the quantum of the sentence, imposing the minimum penalty for the crime. 2017 (merits file, folio 3396). In turn, the representatives stated that said motion was filed on August 1, 2005. Cf. Brief of the representatives of September 28, 2017, (merits file, folio 3502). 230 In relation to the alleged failure to observe the principle of correlation between indictment and judgment, after an analysis of the accusation and the facts taken as proven, it found no evidentiary support to prove them. As for the alleged intimidation of witnesses, it noted that the appellant did not specify the nature of this intimidation and against whom it was directed. In relation to the alleged refusal/denial to testify in the preliminary hearing, it did not find evidentiary support nor real prejudice, since the appellant gave his version at trial, which was duly assessed in the ruling. Lastly, on the claim that the judgment failed to assess his statement, it ruled that the evidence against him was so abundant and gave rise to such a degree of certainty that this assessment would not alter the certainty of the conviction. Cf. Decision N° 2007-01177 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 19, 2007 (evidence file, folios 1045 and 1048 to 1050). 231 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 February 21, 2007. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017, (merits file, folio 3396). In turn, the representatives affirmed that this remedy was filed on March 24, 2007. Cf. Brief of the representatives of September 28, 2017, (merits file, folio 3502). 232 Cf. Decision 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of May 28, 2010 (evidence file, folios 33582 to 33587). 233 Cf. Decision 2010-00544 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of May 28, 2010 (evidence file, folio 1054). 60