although the judge who had issued precautionary measure of pretrial detention against the accused was the same judge who participated in the preliminary hearing of the abbreviated procedure, her intervention was limited to “verifying the existence of the requirements established in […] the Code of Criminal Procedure […], without [said] judge […] having issued any decision on the merits [,] [and it was] the sentencing court that was responsible for assessing the evidence received, the acceptance of the charges by the accused, and thus determining the existence of the facts […].” The court declared inadmissible the second reason for review regarding the lack of grounds given for the sentence, considering that this argument was identical to another one contained in the cassation appeal resolved in decision No. 2004-0924 (supra para. 204) and, therefore, “it [was] not admissible to raise, by way of the review procedure, matters that were already discussed in cassation, unless they are based on new reasons or new evidence.” 435 315. In this regard, this Court considers that the review court ruled on both issues raised and stated the reasons for its conclusions. B.2.6. Fifth motion for review 316. On March 9, 2009, the Archbold Jay brothers filed a fifth motion for review of their conviction, pursuant to transitory provision I of Law 8503 436 arguing: “As a first reason […]the violation of due process […] and the right of defense on the grounds of failure to arraign them and take their initial statement […] this against the five defendants involved in this case […], [and also] the private defense attorneys […] requested the extension of the [preliminary] statement of the five defendants without obtaining an effective response; second, [they] alleged the violation of due process […] because, in the investigation and notification of the charges in this criminal proceeding, the Public Prosecutor's Office omitted to appoint a translator and interpreter for the Archbold Jay brothers, since […] they do not understand the official language of Costa Rica […].” 437 317. On July 10, 2009, in decision No. 2009-0191, the Court of Criminal Cassation of Cartago: i) admitted the first reason for review, considering that it “fulfilled the admissibility requirements,” and ordered a hearing to be held, and (ii) rejected the second reason for review, considering that “in the different proceedings and procedural acts that have been carried out, both in the preparatory and intermediate stages, and subsequently in relation to the cassation appeals and the review actions[,] [...] [...] [Luis and Enrique Archbold Jay] have never requested the appointment of a translator [...] [and] had they actually done so, it would have been established from the beginning of this proceeding and not seven years after it began […].” 438 318. The hearing to substantiate the admitted grounds for the review took place on August 25, 2009. On that same date, in decision No. 2009-0251, the Court of Criminal Cassation of Cartago declared the review proceeding inadmissible because it considered that the records contained the preliminary statements of the defendants and through their study, it was clear that these were provided in accordance with all the requirements established in the regulations; additionally, it noted that during the interviews the defendants were accompanied by a public defender who fulfilled the purpose of protecting their fundamental 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 1946 to 1950 and 33766 to 33769). 436 Cf. Motion for review filed on March 9, 2009, (evidence file, folios 1952 and 1990). 437 Cf. Motion for review filed on March 9, 2009, (evidence file, folios 1952, 1953, 1968, 1969 and 1977). 438 Cf. Decision No. 2009-0191 of the Cassation Criminal Court of Cartago, of July 10, 2009, (evidence file, folios 1992 to 1995). 435 98