Prosecutor’s Office; iii) he was defenseless because he filed a statute of limitations appeal and did not obtain a response, and because his lawyer did not find him at the CAI of La Marina de San Carlos prison, since he was transferred without prior notice; iv) there was an incorrect characterization of the facts; v) the sentence imposed was in violation of due process; vi) the investigation was poor and careless, with specific actions not being completed, and vii) the witnesses incurred in contradictions. 391 In its decision, the Third Chamber outlined all the reasons for the grievances raised, without addressing the merits of the matter, stating only that “[t]he plea is inadmissible; not only does it not demonstrate the specific relevance of the alleged irregularities, but it also fails to separate the allegations and their regulatory support which, under penalty of rejection, is established in Article 445 of the 1996 Code of Criminal Procedure […].” 392 Thus, the Court ruled the appeal inadmissible based on a formalistic argument, leaving aside the legal, factual and evidentiary issues argued by Mr. Rojas. 274. For his part, Mr. Rojas’ defense counsel argued, inter alia: i) illegitimate grounds for setting the sentence; ii) erroneous assessment of the evidence used to establish the sentence, and iii) lack of intellectual evidentiary grounds. The Third Chamber analyzed the first and second grounds, 393 declared the first admissible, annulled the judgment only with regard to the sentence, and returned the matter to the trial court to set the sentence according to law. However, with respect to the third claim, in response to the defense counsel’s allegation that the trial court did not analyze the documentary and testimonial evidence, but only recounted the proven facts “without stating the reasons why it concluded that the version of the [witnesses] is credible” and why it “does not believe the statement made by the defendant,” the Third Chamber dismissed the objection, stating that “the judges were careful to assess the evidence[, …] comparing it and finding the points of coincidence and divergence, in order finally arrive at their incriminating conclusions […].” 394In this regard, it is not clear from the decision on what basis the Third Chamber reached these conclusions, since it does not indicate what these points of coincidence and divergence would be. Therefore, there is a lack of reasoning in the decision. In addition, the Third Chamber limited its review to the evaluation of the judges' actions, without making a substantial analysis of the documentary and testimonial evidence provided in the process, in order to reach its own conclusion on its evidentiary value. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that, despite the fact that the cassation appeal of Mr. Rojas' defense counsel was declared partially admissible, the Third Chamber did not provide, in its Resolution No. 2001-000122, a comprehensive review of the factual and legal controversies raised before it. 275. Second, following the issuance of a new conviction No. 172-2000 on March 28, 2001, Mr. Rojas and his defense counsel, respectively, filed two new cassation appeals. The Court does not have the resolution whereby the cassation appeal filed by Mr. Rojas on April 2, 2001 was resolved, so it will not rule on the matter. In the appeal filed by Mr. Rojas' defense counsel on April 24, 2001, it was again alleged that, in imposing the sentence, the trial court took into account facts contrary to what was established in the conviction, in addition to the fact that said sentence was disproportionate and did not consider all the parameters established in the Criminal Code for its determination. 395 In this regard, in decision 005502001 of June 8, 2001, the Third Chamber analyzed the sentence imposed and confirmed that, 391 ff). Cf. Cassation appeal filed by Rafael Rojas Madrigal on December 18, 2000 (evidence file, folios 966 and Cf. Decision N° 2001-000122 of February 2, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1012). It indicated that the trial court merely referred to “seriousness of the act without stating precisely what constituted such seriousness [, which] did not comply with the requirement to provide reasoning.” It also criticized the fact that the sentence was based on the participation of two young people, when their actions "took place in the context of the fraud scheme [, ] a prescribed crime and not the use of a false document, which is the punishable crime.” Cf. (evidence file, folio 1012). 394 Cf. Decision N° 2001-000122 of February 2, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1013). 395 Cf. Cassation appeal of April 24, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1021 to 1031). 392 393 86