30 Procedure inasmuch as he alleged that the they restrict the “possibility of contesting judgments of conviction in criminal matters.”173 The Constitutional Chamber noted that it had repeatedly ruled on the subject matter and, therefore, “it sees no reason at all to prompts it to review or depart from what it has held on those opportunities.”174 120. Based on the information provided to it, the Commission notes that the alleged victims filed at least five petitions for review of conviction. On June 10, 2005, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José found the petition for review requested by the alleged victims to be inadmissible.175 The Court of Criminal Cassation held that it is not admissible “to revisit issues which were previously the subject of cases heard under the petition for reversal on cassation, which they pursued.”176 121. On October 20, 2006, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José denied another petition for review of conviction. The Court of Criminal Cassation cited its own ruling on cassation of September 9, 2004 declaring the petition inadmissible.177 Additionally, on April 19, 2007, the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José found another petition for review filed by the alleged victims to be admissible.178 It held that “it addresses the issue of the evidence (…) which previously was the reason for this chamber to hear it in the proceeding for petition of reversal on cassation filed at its proper time.”179 122. On July 5, 2007, the Court of Criminal Cassation again found inadmissible another petition for review of conviction.180 The Court of Criminal Cassation held that, under Article 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not admissible to raise matters on review that have been previously addressed on cassation.181 It noted that with regard to the new allegation of the violation of the right to be heard by a competent and impartial judge – which was based on one of the judges, who had sat on the bench in the preliminary hearing, previously issuing a preventive detention order against him – no flaw was identified inasmuch as it is the job of the trial court and not the court presiding over the 173 Annex 78. Decision No. 2005-016776 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated November 30, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 20, 2007. 174 Annex 78. Decision No. 2005-016776 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated November 30, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of August 20, 2007. 175 Annex 79. Decision No. 2005-0535 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated June 10, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of May 4, 2006. 176 Annex 79. Decision No. 2005-0535 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated June 10, 2005. Annex to petitioner’s communication of May 4, 2006. 177 Annex 80. Decision No. 2006-1107 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated October 20, 2006. Annex to petitioner’s communication of April 30, 2007. 178 Annex 81. Decision No. 2007-0389 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated April 19, 2007. Annex to petitioners’ communication received in the IACHR on July 5, 2007. 179 Annex 81. Decision No. 2007-0389 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated April 19, 2007. Annex to petitioners’ communication received in the IACHR on July 5, 2007. 180 Annex 82. Decision No. 438-25-24 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated July 5, 2007. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 20, 2007. 181 Annex 82. Decision No. 438-25-24 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, dated July 5, 2007. Annex to petitioners’ communication of August 20, 2007.