of constitutional guarantees because the package with the documentation was opened in the presence of the criminal judge and the prosecutor in the case. And, regarding the raid on Scot Cochran’s residence, the court had stated that it was conducted during nighttime hours because it was probable that a crime was being committed at that time. Lastly, the Third Chamber concluded that it had not been proved that the defendant’s defense counsel had acted with evident negligence or against his interests, and that the examples of defenselessness presented by the appellant constituted a list of discrepancies with the adverse result of the proceedings.101 B.3. Second review procedure 66. On April 28, 2009, Scot Cochran filed a second review procedure, arguing that, during the proceedings, his right to due process of law had been violated because the State authorities had not advised him of his right to request consular assistance based on his situation as a foreign citizen residing in Costa Rica.102 This review procedure was declared unfounded by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in Ruling 2010-1373 of November 30, 2010. The Court stated that, according to Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, “if the defendant [in a criminal case] considers that he needs consular assistance, he should ask the competent State offices to communicate his situation to the [corresponding] consulate.” Thus, and after summarizing various procedural acts documented in the case file, the Chamber indicated that neither Scot Cochran nor his lawyers had ever requested this assistance.103 B.4. Third review procedure 67. Finally, Scot Cochran filed a third review procedure in a brief of February 10, 2012,104 in which he repeated his arguments regarding the violation of his right to be informed about consular assistance, his right of defense, the unlawfulness of the raid, and the procedural rights of victims. He also presented new arguments in relation to the violation of the guarantee of an impartial judge because the same judge had taken part in both the confirmation of the order for pre-trial detention issued against him, and in the trial court that heard the case that culminated in his prison sentence. This appeal was declared inadmissible by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in Ruling 2013-00211 of February 15, 2013.105 Regarding the impartiality of the judge, the Third Chamber indicated that a review of the ruling of August 11, 2003, that confirmed the pre-trial detention did not reveal any suggestion of partiality because there was no indication that the judge had assessed the body of evidence. It also noted that the appellant had not indicated how his right of defense had been infringed and, regarding the raid, it reiterated that this had been conducted at night because it was Cf. Ruling No. 2007-01464 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 12, 2007, deciding the first appeal for review (evidence file, folios 24 to 36). 101 Cf. Second review procedure filed by Scot Cochran on April 28, 2009, against judgment No. 851-04 delivered by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 158 to 211). 102 Cf. Ruling No. 01373-2010 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 30, 2010, deciding the second review procedure. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ sen-1-0034-504556 103 Cf. Third review procedure filed by Mr. Scot Cochran on February 10, 2012, against judgment No. 85104 delivered by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 213 to 231). 104 Cf. Ruling No. 2013-00211 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 15, 2013, deciding the third review procedure (evidence file, folios 38 to 40). 105 20