196. On June 14, 2004, the Trial Court of the Southern Zone of Golfito issued the second judgment No. 68-2004, in which it declared Luis Archbold Jay, Enrique Archbold Jay and three other persons responsible for the crime of international drug transportation, to the detriment of public health, and sentenced them to 12 years of imprisonment. 260 They filed several appeals against this decision, which are summarized below. 197. On July 9, 2004, 261 they filed an appeal in cassation, presenting six arguments related to the grounds for the judgment and the sentence, as well as the improper use of “spurious” or “unusable” evidence, among others. 262 (infra para. 303). 198. In decision No. 2004-0924 of September 9, 2004, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared that none of their claims were admissible because the defense had requested the application of an abbreviated procedure, which assumes that the defendants acknowledge the crimes attributed to them. 263 199. On March 28, 2005, 264 they filed a motion for review against judgment No. 68-2004 and decision No. 2004-0924 (which dismissed the cassation appeal), arguing several procedural violations and various evidentiary flaws. 200. In decision No. 2005-0535, of June 10, 2005, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José considered that the claim of the defendants was inadmissible, stating, in essence, that the issues raised had already been addressed in decision No. 2004-0924 which decided the first cassation appeal. 265 201. On February 13, 2006, they initiated a second review proceeding, claiming that they were not aware of the implications of the abbreviated procedure, that other defendants “had been convicted and given the minimum ‘sentence’ established” and that there was no correlation between the charges and the sentence.” 266 202. In decision No. 2006-1107, of October 20, 2006, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared the request for review unfounded, considering that it was not proven that the accused were unaware of the scope of the cassation or that the minimum sentence could have been applied to them. 267 260 Cf. Judgment 68-2004 of the Trial Court of the Southern Zone of Golfito, of June 14, 2004 (evidence file, folio 33787). 261 The date on which the appeal was filed is not recorded in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, it would have been filed on July 9, 2004. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017 (merits file, folio 3393, Table I). 262 Cf. Decision 2004-0924 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of September 9, 2004, (evidence file, folio 1898). 263 Cf. Decision 2004-0924 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of September 9, 2004, (evidence file, folio 1902). 264 The date on which the appeal was filed is not recorded in the evidence. However, according to information provided by the State, it would have been filed on July 9, 2004. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017 (merits file, folio 3395, Table II). 265 It stated that: “the aspects related to "the legitimacy of the evidence with which the defendants were convicted, as well as problems of correlation between indictment and sentence and violation of the rules of sound judgment", were known in resolution 2004-0924 which resolved the first cassation appeal filed, and therefore "in accordance with Article 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is not admissible to raise by way of review, issues that have already been discussed and decided in cassation”. Cf. Decision 2005-0535 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of June 10, 2005, (evidence file, folio 1929). 266 Cf. Complaint of February 13, 2006 (evidence file, folios 4579 to 4589 and Decision 2006-1107 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of October 20, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1935). 267 Cf. Decision 2006-1107 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of October 20, 2006, (evidence file, folio 1938). 65