17 72. On July 9, 2004, the Third Chamber denied the motions he filed “because they were flawed in form.”62 73. On October 28, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on October 21 against the criminal courts of the First and Second Judicial Circuits of San José over judgment of conviction No. 1536-02, which was upheld by the Third Chamber.63 Mr. Rojas claimed that a fair trial protection set forth in Article 8.2.h of the Convention had been omitted and his conviction was finalized based on a violation of due process and his right to a defense. The Constitutional Chamber found that said issues must be raised “in compliance with the formal procedures established for that purpose” in the process of review of conviction under Article 408.g of the Code of Criminal Procedure.64 74. On February 20, 2007, the Special Unit for Cassation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor filed a reply as requested by the Third Chamber in its decision of December 15, 2006 pertaining to the motion for review of conviction filed by Mr. Rojas.65 It reported that there has been no infringement of rights as a result of the two judges, who took part in the decision-making process upholding the preventive detention orders, subsequently participating in the drafting of the judgment of conviction, inasmuch as they did not issue an opinion on the merits of the case or on the merits of the evidence.66 Consequently, the unit requested that the motion for review of conviction be denied.67 75. On May 12, 2010, the Constitutional Chamber denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on May 10 by Mr. Rojas.68 The alleged victim claimed that he is deprived of his liberty on the basis of judgment of conviction No. 1536-02, which became dispositive without his being able to exercise the right provided for under Article 8.2.h of the American Convention.69 Mr. Rojas further contended that the new legislative bill cannot require the motion for review of conviction to be filed through an attorney, because the public defenders office is unable to take on that burden.70 He also argued that the attorney requirement and the time limit of 6 months from the time said statute comes into force to file the motion for review of conviction is a way of denying equal conditions for enjoyment 62 Annex 25. Decision No. 00791-04 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated July 9, 2004. Annex to petitioner’s communication of December 20, 2008. 63 Annex 26. Decision No. 2005-014932 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated October 28, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 13, 2006. 64 Annex 26. Decision No. 2005-014932 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated October 28, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of March 13, 2006. 65 Annex 27. Official Letter from the Special Unit for Cassation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, dated February 20, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of July 23, 2007. 66 Annex 27. Official Letter from the Special Unit for Cassation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, dated February 20, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of July 23, 2007. 67 Annex 27. Official Letter from the Special Unit for Cassation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, dated February 20, 2007. Annex to petitioner’s communication of July 23, 2007. 68 Annex 28. Decision No. 2010-008598 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 12, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on October 28, 2010. 69 Annex 28. Decision No. 2010-008598 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 12, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on October 28, 2010. 70 Annex 28. Decision No. 2010-008598 of the Constitutional Chamber, dated May 12, 2010. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on October 28, 2010.