ideal” of crimes [Note: when a single act or omission violates various legal provisions], with regard to each victim and this would result in a lesser sentence.98 63. In ruling 2005-00126 of February 28, 2005, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the appeals that had been filed. First, it held that the acts of which the petitioner had been convicted took place between 1999 and 2003, during which time it had been proved that Scot Cochran was already living in Costa Rica. In addition, the Third Chamber considered that the fact that the investigation file did not include the birth date or certificate of some of the victims was not an error that invalidated the judgment. Also, regarding the arguments on possible errors in the assessment of the evidence, the Third Chamber noted that the decision of the court a quo was not based exclusively on the statements of the victims of the acts, but also on numerous elements of proof such as photographic and audiovisual records. Regarding the application of the rules on the concurrence of crimes, the Third Chamber stated that, even though the rules of “concurso ideal” had been applied in relation to the acts defined as “paid sexual relations,” this did not alter the length of the sentence imposed, because those acts also took place concurrently [en concurso material] with other crimes, including the “supply [of narcotics] to minors,” and the maximum punishment for this was used in order to make the calculation because it was the most serious of all the crimes involved pursuant to article 76 of the Criminal Code.99 B.2. First review procedure 64. On June 14, 2005, a review procedure was opened before the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in which, first, the violation of the right to a second hearing was argued. The appellant also indicated that the State’s organs had carried out certain unlawful actions during the investigation that had had an impact on the chain of custody of the probative elements used as evidence of guilt. He also argued the existence of three new pieces of documentary evidence that, in the defense’s opinion, would invalidate most of the testimonial evidence and, lastly, he asserted that there had been violations of due process in the case because, during the investigation and the oral hearing, Scot Cochran had not had an effective defense counsel who provided him with appropriate assistance.100 65. On December 12, 2007, the Third Chamber decided this appeal in Ruling 20071464 and declared the review procedure unfounded. The grounds for this decision cited the judgment of the Inter-American Court in Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, and indicated that there was no evidence in the processing of the case against Scot Cochran that would allow it to conclude: that the remedy of cassation had been decided with excessive formalist rigor; that some of the appellant’s arguments had not been decided, and that access had been denied to a review of the determination of the facts, or of the way in which the evidence had been assessed. Regarding the seizure of documentation from Scot Cochran’s office, the Chamber ruled out that this had been done in violation 98 Cf. Remedy of cassation filed by MCZ and MSB, on behalf of Scot Cochran, before the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on September 6, 2004, against judgment No. 851-04 delivered by the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José (evidence file, folios 5 to 19). Cf. Ruling No. 2005-00126 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 28, 2005, deciding the cassation remedy. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1- 0034 301797 99 Cf. First review procedure of June 14, 2004, filed against judgment No. 851-04 delivered by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José of August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 114 to 156 and 2343 to 2368). 100 19