provision I of Law 8503. In these appeals he alleged, inter alia: i) lack of grounds as to why his account of the facts was not considered credible and why no handwriting analysis was performed on the victim; ii) it was considered proven that the accused impersonated another person based on a statement from which this fact could not be inferred; ii) failure to substantiate the version of the witness FM accepted by the trial court; iv) the same judges who issued the conviction had previously confirmed the pretrial detention of the accused, in violation of the principle of objectivity; and v) the judges who found the accused guilty and imposed the sentence that was later annulled, again served on the court to decide on the penalty. In the face of the new appeal against this decision, the Third Chamber directly established the sentence, preventing any possibility of appeal. In this regard, through decision No. 2010-00544 of May 28, 2010, the Third Chamber analyzed each of the grievances claimed through its own assessment of the evidence in the case file. 400 In particular, it referred to the reasons why Mr. Rojas’ statement was not assessed and the fact that a handwriting analysis was not carried out. Regarding the latter, it upheld Mr. Rojas’ claim, annulled the criminal conviction and set the sentence at one year, the minimum established for the unlawful act. Thus, the Third Chamber addressed the arguments raised previously by the appellant, in respect of which it had not received a duly substantiated response through its own analysis. 279. Fifth, it is on record that Mr. Rojas also filed two other motions for review on February 12, 2008 and January 21, 2013. It is clear from the analysis of the decisions that each of the grievances presented in said appeals was analyzed through a separate evaluation of the case file by the Third Chamber. 401 280. In view of the foregoing, this Court concludes that, despite the fact that on two occasions the responses to Mr. Rojas’ claims were based on formalistic criteria or lacked a 400 To refute the appellant's arguments as to why his statement was unreliable, as well as the fact that a handwriting analysis was not performed, the court analyzed the statements of the defendant, as well as four other testimonies and the forfeiture records of the check in question. As to the fact that the conclusion that Mr. Rojas allegedly impersonated another person was not derived from a statement, the court analyzed the relevant statement. As to the failure to substantiate why one version of a testimony was taken as valid over another, the court referred to the circumstances in which the statement taken as valid was given, and indicated that the latter was the one that coincided with that of another witness. Regarding the allegation that the same judges who issued the conviction judgment had previously confirmed the pretrial detention, the court indicated that “neither the criminal judge who ordered the pretrial detention and the subsequent precautionary measures, nor the members of the trial court that confirmed these decisions, issued the conviction judgment.” Finally, regarding the last claim that the same court imposed the new penalty after the first conviction was annulled and that the Chamber of Cassation directly fixed the sentence, the Chamber of Cassation confirmed the allegations and upheld the appellant's claims. Cf. (evidence file, folios 1056, 1057, 1059, 1060 and 1061). 401 In the appeal of February 12, 2008, Mr. Rojas Madrigal alleged that he was not informed of the facts to the detriment of the public interest and that if this had been the case, he would have requested a handwriting analysis. In decision No. 2010-01205 of October 29, 2010, the Third Chamber analyzed the file and determined that from the beginning of the investigation, the accused was made aware that a deposit was allegedly made with a check belonging to an account closed for theft. Likewise, it recalled that decision N° 2010-00544 of the same Chamber had already stated that such evidence was unnecessary to rule out that the offended party should have drawn the check with which the deposit was made. Cf. Decision 2010-01205 of October 29, 2010 (evidence file, folio 33590). In addition, through a special review proceeding filed on January 21, 2013, the appellant alleged: i) violation of due process because a judge had resolved a statute of limitations objection in the intermediate stage of the proceedings, which was presented again at the trial. In this regard, in decision N° 2014-01118 of July 2, 2014, the Third Chamber analyzed both decisions of the judge and determined that in the first one he made a calculation of the terms, while in the second he analyzed the merits of the case to establish the figure of the amount defrauded, to be considered as a minor fraud offense, a situation that would significantly vary the statute of limitations period, and therefore declared the claim without merit; ii) ii) omission of the investigative statement and notification of the charges made. The Third Chamber indicated that it had already ruled on the matter through decision N° 2010-01205, which is on record, and iii) introduction of illegal evidence into the proceedings because the check could only be seized with a judge’s order. The Third Chamber pointed out that the check had already been reported as stolen, for which reason the judicial police seized it, which is fully valid. Cf. Decision N° 201401118 of July 2, 2014 (evidence file, folios 33593 to 33598). 88