assessed and juxtaposed the trial court’s decision with the probative elements.185 This ruling also referred in a detailed and substantiated way to all the formal and substantial claims made by the representatives. The Court notes that the ruling: (i) verified that Scot Cochran was already living in Costa Rica when the facts occurred; (ii) considered that the documents that the defense had argued were incomplete because they omitted the birth date of some of the victims did not constitute a defect that invalidated the judgment; (iii) ruled on the alleged flaws in the assessment of the evidence and noted that the decision of the court a quo was not based exclusively on the statements of the victims of the acts, but on a body of evidence that included photographic and audiovisual records, and (iv) regarding the application of the rules concerning the concurrence of crimes, asserted that, even though the rules of concurso ideal had been applied with the regard to the acts defined as “paid sexual relations,” the length of the sentence imposed was unaltered, because those acts also took place concurrently with other crimes [en concurso material], including the “supply [of narcotics] to minors,” and the maximum punishment for this was used when making the calculation. 139. Similarly, the Court was able to verify that all the decisions made in the rulings of the Third Chamber comprehensively reviewed the arguments on which Scot Cochran and his defense counsel based their appeals: (i) in ruling 2007-01464 of December 12, 2007,186 the Third Chamber found that there was no evidence that would allow it to conclude that the remedy of cassation had been decided unduly, because that remedy had not been decided with excessive formalistic rigor; none of the appellant’s arguments had been left undecided, access was not denied to the review of how the facts were determined, and the evidence was not assessed erroneously. The Third Chamber also ruled out the violation of Scot Cochran’s privacy and the arguments concerning the unlawful nature of the raid. Furthermore, it concluded that it had not been proved that the defendant’s defense had been exercised 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; (ii) in ruling 01373-2010 of November 30, 2010,187 the Third Chamber reviewed the procedural acts relating to Scot Cochran’s right to request consular assistance and, after examining the case file, determined that neither Scot Cochran nor his lawyers ever requested this assistance and 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 request the competent state authorities to communicate his situation to the corresponding consulate, and (iii) lastly, in ruling 2013-00211 of February 15, 2013,188 the Third Chamber decided that no suspicion of partiality could be noted because there was no evidence that the judge challenged by the appellants had assessed the body of evidence and, in relation to the alleged failure to notify the right to consular assistance, the higher court reiterated its considerations following its analysis of this issue in its ruling of November 30, 2010. Ruling No. 2005-00126 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 28, 2005, deciding the remedy of cassation. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034301797 185 186 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). 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-10034-504556, 187 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). 188 40