44 173. Mr. Damas Vega filed three motions for review of conviction, which were consolidated into one motion on October 1, 2010, by the Third Chamber. In these motions, he argued violation of the principle of impartiality because the judge, who issued a preventive detention order against him, was the same judge who ruled on the appeal of said measure.290 174. On August 29, 2012, the Third Chamber granted the motion for review of conviction.291 It noted that judicial officials misplace the file of precautionary measures [for preventive detention].292 The Third Chamber held that the judge who issued the preventive detention order on August 25, 1999, examined the facts and had direct contact with the testimonial evidence, and subsequently did not recuse himself from hearing the case at the oral and public trial stage.293 It also noted that “his considerations at the time of ruling on the [preliminary] investigation stage constituted an advance opinion that caused him to lose the objectivity necessary to stand in judgment of the instant case” and that “the principle of impartiality of the trier of fact was affected.”294 175. The Third Chamber also found that the 20-year prison term given to Mr. Vega was not sufficiently supported. It held that “the imposition of that amount of punishment, for a crime of attempted homicide, is unusual (…) it does not lay out the reasons why Damas Vega’s sentence was not reduced (…) nor are the criteria of proportionality, suitability or necessity addressed.”295 For these reasons, the Third Chamber ordered the case to be retried with a new make-up of the panel sitting in judgment.296 176. On February 8, 2013, the Third Chamber decided to extend the preventive detention of Mr. Vega for a term of six months in order to ensure his presence at the hearings of the defendants.297 On May 16, 2013, the Trial Court of the Southern Zone dismissed the case with prejudice because the statute of limitations had lapsed in favor of Damas Vega Atencio, Kattia Sánchez and Dinnier Concepción for the crime of two counts of attempted aggravated homicide in concurrence with aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated robbery. It held that the crimes were time-barred as of October 2, 2007, as 290 Annex 136. Decision 2012-01340 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 29, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication received at the IACHR on September 3, 2013. 291 Annex 136. Decision 2012-01340 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 29, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on September 3, 2013. 292 Annex 136. Decision 2012-01340 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 29, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on September 3, 2013. 293 Annex 136. Decision 2012-01340 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 29, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on September 3, 2013. 294 Annex 136. Decision 2012-01340 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 29, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on September 3, 2013. 295 Annex 136. Decision 2012-01340 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 29, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on September 3, 2013. 296 Annex 136. Decision 2012-01340 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 29, 2012. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on September 3, 2013.. 297 Annex 137. Decision 2013-00071 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated February 8, 2013. Annex to petitioner’s communication received in the IACHR on September 3, 2013.