by the appellants, said court held that the claim was a copy of the cassation appeal that it had already resolved previously (supra para. 200), and therefore dismissed it, explaining that is was not feasible to resubmit questions to review that had already been judged in cassation, in accordance with Article 411 of the CCP. Likewise, it considered that it was inadmissible to object to how that Chamber decided the aforementioned cassation appeal, because “in reality, what this conceals is an appeal to revoke the decision taken by this court.” 425 Thus, it is evident that the Chamber analyzed and provided reasons for its considerations regarding the issues raised in this appeal. B.2.3. Second motion for review 306. On February 13, 2006 the Archbold Jay brothers filed a new motion for review, 426 stating that: “a) At the time they were offered [it], they did not have the slightest idea of what an abbreviated process meant [,] […] both have reached the conclusion that something they were offered was not complied with, that is, that they would be given the most favorable sentence; (b) Despite being foreigners, they deserve to be treated the same as Costa Ricans [because] a large number of defendants who have gone through the abbreviated process, have been convicted with the minimum “sentence”; c) There [was] no correlation between indictment and sentence, since Article 77 of the Law on Psychotropic Drugs […] has nothing to do with it, as it establishes a minimum sentence of three years and not the 12 years that were imposed.” 427 307. On October 20, 2006, through decision No. 2006-1107, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared the motion for review without merit. As for the argument that the defendants did not receive the sentence that they claim they were promised, the judicial authority pointed out that the appellants did not prove this situation and that, on the contrary, the record of the preliminary hearing shows that the sentence they negotiated was twelve years. The Court of Cassation transcribed the contents of that record (supra para. 202) and stated that there is no evidence to reasonably suggest that the defendants consented to the application of the abbreviated procedure “by mistake or against their will.” Nor is there evidence that the sentence was imposed without granting them the opportunity to exercise their defense or obviating the necessary demonstration of their guilt. 428 308. With regard to the alleged infringement of the principle of equality because, according to the appellants, they were not granted the minimum sentence because they are not Costa Ricans, but Colombians, as well as in relation to the alleged lack of grounds for the imposition of the 12-year sentence, the review court indicated that this was due to the agreement that the defendants themselves made by accepting the abbreviated procedure, taking into account that “the parties freely negotiated the application of the abbreviated process on the basis of a 12-year prison sentence and not […] on the promise that they would receive the minimum sentence possible.” 429 425 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, folios 33751 to 33756). 426 Cf. Brief of interposition of proceeding of review, signed by Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Archbold of February 13, 2006 (evidence file, folios 4579 a 4589). 427 Cf. Decision No. 2006-1107 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of October 20, 2006 (evidence file, folios 33757 to 33761). 428 Cf. Decision No. 2006-1107 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of October 20, 2006 (evidence file, folio 33759). 429 Cf. Decision No. 2006-1107 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of October 20, 2006 (evidence file, folio 33759). 96