303. In response to these arguments, on September 9, 2004, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José decided the following (decision No. 20040924): 421 i) regarding the use of the abbreviated procedure, the judicial authority pointed out that it was the defendants who requested this procedure, so that if they considered that there was no legitimate evidence of the facts indicated “it is not understandable why” they proposed it; furthermore, citing the record of the preliminary hearing (supra para. 198), it stated that there is no evidence that the defendants chose to use the abbreviated procedure “by mistake or against their will”; ii) in relation to the evidentiary matters, the Court of Cassation, in principle, did not analyze the particular issues raised, but reasoned that, in its opinion, the facts (in the terms described by the Public Prosecutor's Office) were proven because the defendants acknowledged them. In this sense, it explained that the nature of the abbreviated procedure is precisely to dispense with the adversarial proceedings, taking into account that the likely perpetrator decides to accept the charges before the trial begins, which does not imply that the criminal guarantees cease to exist, but that the accused decides not to exercise them in order to achieve a reduction, in principle, of the sentence that could be imposed. Nevertheless, the review court cited the reasoning of the trial court regarding the analysis of the evidence and explained that the participation of the accused was proven by “the facts that they freely admitted […] which were confirmed by other elements of evidence”, and iii) finally, regarding the determination of the penalty, the Court of Cassation cited the reasoning of the trial court and concluded that it was sufficient to justify the sentence. Therefore, this Court considers that the Court of Cassation addressed the issues raised by the appellants and provided reasons for its decisions. B.2.2. First motion for review 304. On March 28, 2005, 422 the Archbold Jay brothers initiated a review proceeding against judgment No. 68-2004 and cassation ruling No. 2004-0924, expressing similar points to those asserted in the latter appeal. 423 They only added the argument that it was incorrect that, in deciding the appeal, the respective court essentially based its decision “on the defendants’ acceptance or admission of facts made at the time, conferring on the abbreviated procedure consequences that it does not have.” 424 305. In this regard, on June 10, 2005, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José issued judgment No. 2005-0535. In response to the arguments reiterated Cf. Judgment No. 2004-0924 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of September 9, 2004, (evidence file, folios 33736 to 33750). 422 The date on which the appeal was filed is not recorded in the evidence. However, information provided by the State shows that it was filed on March 28, 2005. Cf. Brief of the State of September 13, 2017 (merits file, folio 3395). 423 Cf. Judgment No. 2005-0535 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of June 10, 2005 (evidence file, folios 33752 to 33755). The appellants alleged: “Violation of due process, […] because they consider that the Court of Cassation essentially based its decision in the cassation appeal on the acceptance or admission of facts that the defendants made at the time, conferring on the abbreviated procedure consequences that it does not have; as a second reason, they claim[ed] a lack of sufficient grounds because the judgement was based on evidence not obtained in accordance with the law or not legally incorporated into the proceedings [;] as the third reason, they claim[ed] violation of the rules of due substantiation, because the judgment was based on spurious and unusable evidence [;] as the fourth reason they point[ed] to a failure to provide a proper justification because the court assessed decisive evidence or proof without following the rules of sound judgment[;] [i]n the fifth plea they claim[ed] that there was no due justification for the sanction imposed[;] [i]n the sixth argument […]they allege[d] a violation of the indispensable chain of custody[;] [...] [i]n the seventh plea they argue[d] that the sentence did not comply with the principle of correlation between the accusation, evidence and sentence.” 424 Cf. Decision No. 2005-0535 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of June 10, 2005, (evidence file, folio 33752). 421 95