192. Subsequently, in a writ of habeas corpus filed on October 30, 2012 252 and a motion for amparo on January 21, 2013, 253 Mr. Rojas explained that he did not file a motion for review against judgment No. 614-09 because he did not have access to the technology required to view the resolution, which was contained in a compact disc. This Court does not have information on the outcome of these appeals. 193. On May 4, 2011, Mr. Rojas filed another writ of habeas corpus in which he asked the court to define the scope of Law 8837 in relation to persons convicted prior to its entry into force. 254 Likewise, on June 13, 2012, he submitted to the General Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice a request for the application of the disciplinary regime to the members of the Third Chamber. 255 The file does not contain information on the outcome of these actions. B.2. Group 3: Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay B.2.1. First judgment N° 76-2003 and motion for review 194. On August 20, 2003, the Trial Court of the Southern Zone of Golfito, in judgment No. 76-2003, found Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Archbold Jay and three other persons, all of Colombian nationality, responsible for the crime of international drug transportation, to the detriment of public health, sentencing them to 12 years of imprisonment. 256 On October 31, 2003, 257 these individuals initiated a proceeding for review of judgment No. 76-2003. 258 195. In decision No. 2004-0336 of April 15, 2004, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared the review proceeding admissible, 259 annulled the judgment issued and ordered the case to be returned to the court for a new substantiation. B.2.2. Second judgment N° 68-2004 and motions filed Cf. Brief submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of October 30, 2012. (evidence file, folio 1683). 253 Cf. Brief submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of January 21, 2013. (evidence file, folio 1692). 254 Cf. Brief submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal addressed to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of May 4, 2011. (evidence file, folio 1707). 255 Cf. Brief submitted by Rafael Antonio Rojas Madrigal addressed to the Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice, of June 13, 2012. (evidence file, folio 1713). 256 Cf. Judgment 76-2003 of the trial court of the Southern Zone, Golfito, of August 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 33717). Cf. Official letter D.PCD-1509-2002, of the Anti-Drugs Police of Costa Rica, of November 19, 2002 (file evidence, folio 1891). 257 The date on which the appeal was filed is not recorded in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, said appeal was filed on October 31, 2003. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017 (merits file, folio 3395, table II). 258 They argued that: “[…]the judge omitted to refer to the evidence in order to consider [...the] proven facts of the judgment as established, especially since they accepted an abbreviated procedure, and this does not inhibit the judge from analyzing the evidence [.... and] making a reference to the location [where] according to naval reports […] the drug packages were thrown into the sea, since the application of national or international law depends on this, in addition to the fact that this situation also affects the chain of custody of the drugs […]”.Cf. Decision 2004-0336 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of April 15, 2004, (evidence file, folio 33734). 259 It considered that: “the trial judge limited himself to citing the evidence that was admitted (descriptive substantiation) and mainly based on the defendants' acceptance of the charges; he did not provide an intellectual substantiation of the evidence [...] [and] the fact that Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Criminal Procedure states that the sentence must be succinct does not entitle the a quo to disregard the analysis of the evidence included in the proceedings in accordance with the rules of sound criticism.” Cf. Decision 2004-0336 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of April 15, 2004, (evidence file, folio 33734). 252 64