309. From the analysis of the answers provided on the issues raised about the sentence, this Court notes that, in response to each of the matters raised, the review court stated the reasons that supported its conclusions. B.2.4. Third motion for review 310. On December 5, 2006, 430 the defense of the Archbold Jay brothers initiated a third review procedure, based on the following reasons: “As a first reason […] they alleged the violation of due process because the judgment on which the conviction was based [...] relied on illegitimate evidence […]; second, they claimed a violation of due process owing to a breach of the chain of custody from the time the packages were located at sea until their arrival in Costa Rica[;] third, they alleged the violation of due process owing to the lack of a chain of custody of the evidence provided by the United States Government […].” 431 311. On April 19, 2007, through decision No. 2007-0389, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared the petition for review inadmissible. The Court of Cassation considered that there was a close link between the alleged reasons and decided to address them jointly, considering that the arguments of the convicted parties “[had] already been the subject of other review proceedings […] and [had] been declared inadmissible not only for reiterating arguments but also for being untenable.” In particular, it noted that “the defendants agreed to [the abbreviated procedure…] were duly informed of its nature and consequences, […] were aware that they were waiving the right to an oral and public trial and, therefore, the right to discuss and examine the evidence offered.” 432 312. In this regard, this Court considers that the Court of Cassation addressed the matters raised by the appellant and gave reasons for its decision. B.2.5. Fourth motion for review 313. On May 22, 2007, the Archbold Jay brothers filed a fourth motion for review arguing the following: “First […] the defendants allege a violation of due process, arguing that their right to a hearing by an impartial and independent judge or court was impaired [,] [since a judge] first examined […] a request for pretrial detention against them, in which […] [she allegedly] expressed a finding of certainty […]. Subsequently, in a preliminary hearing, the same judge considered the application for an abbreviated procedure […] regarding which, despite having ruled on the merits, she again issued an opinion […]; second […]they allege that the [court] did not take into account, when reaching its conclusions [,] that they are persons with families, that they have no criminal record, and that they have cooperated with the justice system by submitting to the abbreviated procedure […];” 433 [also] the lower court [did] not provide reasons to explain why they were not […] granted the minimum [sentence] nor the one-third reduction [of the minimum sentence as the benefit derived from the abbreviated process]. 434 314. On July 5, 2007, in decision No. 2007-0744, the Criminal Cassation Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared the first argument inadmissible, noting that Cf. Brief filing the motion for review, of December 5, 2006 (evidence file, folios 4596 to 4659). Cf. Decision No. 2007-0389 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of April 19, 2007, (evidence file, folios 4753, 4755 and 4756). 432 Cf. Decision No. 2007-0389 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of April 19, 2007, (evidence file, folios 4753 to 4757). 433 Cf. Decision No. 2007-0744 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, of July 5, 2007, (evidence file, folios 33767 to 33768). 434 Cf. Brief filing the motion for review, of May 22, 2007 (evidence file, folios 4782 to 4784). 430 431 97