02567 of March 22, 2000, stated that “the lack of the warning contained in (sic) Article 36 of the Constitution by the sentencing court, regarding the abbreviated procedure, does not constitute an infringement of due process.” Consequently, the Third Chamber dismissed the motion for review. .318 226. The second motion for review was declared inadmissible by the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, Second Section, in decision 2007-00546 of October 5, 2007. Mr. Mora alleged “defective reasoning for the length of the sentence” on three grounds. 319 In this regard, the Court declared the motion inadmissible, considering that the Third Chamber had already ruled in cassation on the alleged defects pointed out. 320 (infra para. 335). 227. The third motion for review was declared inadmissible by the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, First Section, in decision No. 2008-00236 of May 28, 2008. 321 Mr. Mora requested the annulment of the conviction based on two claims: i) the abbreviated procedure was applied to him, pursuant to the CCP of 1996, even though the facts occurred prior to its enactment, and ii) he was not advised of his “right of abstention when accepting the facts for the application of the abbreviated procedure.” Regarding this point, he indicated that “when the Third Chamber ruled on the motion for review in which he presented this grievance, the application of the CCP had just begun and his claim was declared inadmissible, although subsequently there have been rulings, which he cites, of the Third Chamber and the Court of Cassation that consider such warning pertinent.” 322 In response, the Court of Criminal Cassation declared the claims inadmissible, considering that the first was manifestly unfounded and that the second had already been raised in the review procedure 323 (infra para. 336). 228. The fourth motion for review was declared inadmissible by the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, First Section, in decision No. 2008-00557 of November 25, 2008. Mr. Mora requested that the facts of which he was accused be referred for further examination in a new ordinary criminal trial, based on two claims: i) violation of the rules of due process and legality by giving retroactive effect to a procedural law, and ii) the abbreviated procedure “contemptuously disregarded the right to a second judicial hearing” because it did not allow him to exercise his defense by means of an appeal. In response, the Court of Criminal Cassation determined that the first claim was inadmissible because “it has already been heard and decided by this court (cf. ruling N° 2008-00236 of […] May 28, 2008), and therefore in accordance with the provisions of […the] Code of Criminal Procedure, it is inappropriate to attempt to reintroduce its discussion in this court,” and transcribed the content of the aforementioned resolution (infra para. 337). In turn, it considered that the second claim was presented “outside of the assumptions that authorize it,” as well as being manifestly unfounded (infra para. 339). 324 318 Cf. Decision No 2000-00917 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 11, 2000 (evidence file, folios 35475 and 35477). 319 Cf. Decision No. 2007-00546 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela of October 5, 2007 (evidence file, folios 35466 to 35468). 320 Cf. Decision No. 2007-00546 of the Court of Criminal Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela of 5 October 2007 (evidence file, folios 35466 to 35468). 321 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00236 of the Court of Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, First Section, of May 28, 2008 (evidence file, folio 35483). 322 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00236 of the Court of Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, First Section, of May 28, 2008 (evidence file, folios 35482 and 35483). 323 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00236 of the Court of Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, First Section, of May 28, 2008 (evidence file, folios 35483). 324 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00557 of the Court of Cassation of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, First Section, of November 25, 2008(evidence file, folios 35485 to 35488). 72