III.- Having verified the respective deliberation in accordance with the provisions of article 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), this Criminal Sentence Appeals Chamber (Cámara de Apelación de Sentencia Penal) considered the issues raised in the challenges. IV.- The pertinent legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings. Drafted by the Criminal Sentence Appeals Judge Hernández Leiva; and, WHEREAS (CONSIDERANDO): - By means of resolutions No. 2025-0003, dated 09:30 hours on April 29, 2025 (cf. folios 7702 to 7705) and No. 2025-0005, dated 15:40 hours on May 6, 2025 (cf. folios 7782 to 7783), this Chamber admitted for processing the appeals filed by Master Francisco Mena Ayales (cf. folios 7099 to 7192) and Licentiate Luis Cubillo Pacheco (cf. folios 7193 to 7216), both representing [Nombre 001]; Doctor José Pablo Badilla Villanueva, representing [Nombre 030] (cf. folios 7217 to 7282); Master Manuel Soto Aguilar representing [Nombre 016] (cf. folios
\n\n7314 to 7340); attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, representing the accused [Name 010] and ([Name 019]) (cf. folios 7405 to 7448); Marilén Solórzano Hernández, Master, representing [Name 029] (cf. folios 7451 to 7464), [Name 004] (cf. folios 7466 to 7470), and [Name 026] (cf. folios 7472 to 7478); Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, Master, representing ([Name 013]), [Name 022], and [Name 015] (cf. folios 7480 to 7494); the accused persons [Name 019] (cf. folios 7092 to 7097); [Name 026] (cf. folio 7341 to 7346); [Name 029] (cf. folios 7347 to 7351); [Name 004] (cf. folios 7352 to 7355); [Name 007] (cf. folios 7356 to 7359); [Name 030] (cf. folios 7360 to 7404); the third parties with an interest in the proceeding [Name 045] (cf. folios 7067 to 7091) and attorney René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez representing [Name 037] (cf. folios\n\n7283 to 7305); against judgment no. 007-2024 of 10:00 a.m. on November 21, 2024, handed down by the Specialized Criminal Court for Organized Crime (Tribunal Penal Especializado en Delincuencia Organizada), whereby criminal liability was declared for [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 016] and [Nombre 019], for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking; for [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 016] and [Nombre 019] for the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and for [Nombre 010], for the crime of simple homicide. As a result of the foregoing declaration, it imposed the following prison sentences: 40 years on [Nombre 001]; 30 years on [Nombre 030]; 24 years on [Nombre 029]; 20 years on ([Nombre 013]), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015]; 10 years on [Nombre 004], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 026] and 28 years on [Nombre 010] (cf. pp. 6517 to 7063). Additionally, the joinder (adhesión) filed by [Nombre 044], in the capacity of interested third party, was admitted (cf. pp. 7534 to 7539).\n\nII. Composition of the Sentence Appeals Court of the Specialized Jurisdiction for Organized Crime (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia de la Jurisdicción Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada) to hear the present matter.\n\nThe knowledge of the appeals filed by the parties in this case corresponded to the First Section of the Sentencing Appeals Court (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia) of the Specialized Jurisdiction for Organized Crime (Jurisdicción Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada), composed at the time of issuing this ruling by judges Andrea Renauld Castro, Mónica Hernández Leiva and judge Max Antonio Escalante Quirós. The latter was not present at the oral hearing held on May 9 and 12, 2025, as on that occasion the composition of the court was completed by judge María Milagro Granados García. Subsequently, through a report visible on folios 7830 to 7832, judge Granados García presented an excuse for having participated in the adjudication of a case related to the present one. This excuse was accepted in a ruling at 11:50 a.m. on July 1, 2025, as observed on folio 7833. In cases such as the one before us, where the composition of the collegiate body issuing the final ruling partially differs from that which participated in the oral hearing, this Chamber applies the criterion established by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in ruling No. 2007-17553, of 12:23 p.m. on November 30, 2007. It determined that: \"[…] *it is constitutionally valid that in those cassation hearings or oral hearings where evidence is not received orally or where the parties' arguments are already in writing, without anything new being contributed, other judges, different from those who participated in the hearing, may take part in making the decision, if and only if they are capable of doing so and there are justified reasons (which must be recorded) that prevent those who were at the oral hearing from meeting on a near date to study and resolve the matter*\". In the present case, it has been verified that, in the referenced hearing, the parties limited themselves to presenting the arguments that were already in writing and no evidence was produced orally, since the only evidence admitted was documentary in nature and was previously available to the parties. Furthermore, as already indicated, there is an impediment preventing judge Granados, who was present at the hearing, from participating in the issuance of this ruling. Based on the considerations set forth, the variation in the composition of the court is not only appropriate but also necessary, in order to provide a response to the parties within a reasonable time and thus give effect to the principle of prompt and complete justice.\n\n2. **Jurisdiction.** In this matter, the acquittal issued in favor of the accused [Name 033] for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was not challenged, nor was that ordered in favor of the defendant [Name 007] for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). By virtue of the foregoing, in accordance with Articles 446 and 447 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), they shall not be subject to review by this Sentencing Appeals Court (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia), a limit set by the legislator for the assumption of the respective jurisdiction, in accordance with the principle of finality of judgments and no reform to the detriment.\n\n3. **Oral hearing.** At the request of the appellants, an oral hearing was held on May 9 and 12, 2025.\n\nIn the first of the sessions, the private defense attorneys Francisco Mena Ayales and Luis Antonio Cubillo Pacheco presented their arguments in defense of the accused [Name 001]; Víctor Raúl Obando Mendoza, representing [Name 016] and René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, as representative of the interested third parties [Name 037] and [Name 045]. Attorney Víctor Ramón Rodríguez de Sárraga, who provides the technical defense for [Name 019], [Name 007] and [Name 010], as well as attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández, private defender of the defendants [Name 029], [Name 004] and [Name 026], also appeared, but did not present their oral arguments, instead conforming to what was stated in the challenges already submitted in writing.\n\nIn the session of May 12, 2025, Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva presented in defense of the defendant [Name 030]. The private defense attorney Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, who represents [Name 013], [Name 022] and [Name 015], justified his absence and requested the rescheduling of the proceeding; however, he ultimately withdrew from the hearing. The details of what occurred are recorded in the audio and video files 180001041219PE-0905202513223-2_Multi—0, 180001041219PE-09052025101533-2_Multi—0 and 180001041219PE-12052025101223-2_Multi—0.\n\nV. Claims related to the violation of the principles of impartiality and natural judge. Given the need to first address claims that could affect all defendants, it is necessary to change the order of resolution of the grounds composing the appeals filed by the parties. Fifth ground of appeal filed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Name 001]. He alleges \"Violation of the principle of natural judge. Violation of the principle of objectivity and impartiality.\" He indicates that Judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez should have excused himself from trying [Name 001]; however, he ignored his legal duty with the sole purpose of convicting him. As background, he points out that on May 2, 2024, before the trial started, Lic. Simón Angulo recused Judges Christian Álvarez Campos and Leonardo Brenes Gómez, because they were among the prosecutors authorized to access the content of telephone interceptions and, in the case of the former, also because he received a police report.\n\nIt notes that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) filed a recusal motion (recusación) against the aforementioned judge and that the prosecutor in charge stated “well, the Public Prosecutor's Office had it already prepared,” which in the defense's view may imply “that the prosecutorial body was already in agreement with Judge Leonardo Brenes to recuse him and thus guarantee that he would continue hearing the case, because the prosecutor himself even states that this incident has almost no importance, and furthermore that the Public Prosecutor's Office already knew how the Trial Court would resolve said recusal motion, which could not be more obscure for the rights of the individuals to be judged.” It asserts that Judge Brenes Gómez should have disclosed that in 2018, when the investigation against the accused was underway, he filed an accusation in which he stated that his client and [Nombre 050] were drug traffickers; however, he omitted that action and kept the information to himself, because making it public would have justified a recusal motion against him. It notes that the court accepted the excuse against Judge Álvarez and transcribes, in extenso, the reasoning that justified it. It asserts that the defendant had no opportunity to enjoy a fair trial due to the involvement of Judge Brenes Gómez, even though the witnesses do not refer to any criminal activity on his part. It states that, from February 2016 to May 2017, under case file 16000045-1219-PE, a criminal organization dedicated, in theory, to drug trafficking was investigated, in which [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] appeared. It indicates that “Within said investigation, there initially existed information that the officer of the Drug Control Police (Policía de Control de Drogas) of the Ministry of Public Security, [Nombre 057], in charge of said investigation up to that point, had procured impunity for the investigated persons, and for this reason a criminal case was opened against him under case file number 16-000137-1219-PE.” It notes that the case was handled by the then-prosecutor Leonardo Brenes Gómez, who accused the Drug Control Police agent of the crime of procuring impunity (procuración de impunidad).\n\nIt details that the accusation was drafted by Brenes Gómez and in it he described his personal considerations about [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050]. It transcribes what it identifies as the second and seventh paragraphs of the accusatory piece, then it refers that the actions committed by a police agent can create anger in the prosecutor's office, because drugs could not be seized as stated by Brenes Gómez, which were supposedly located on a farm. It highlights that Brenes Gómez stated that his client and [Nombre 050] were part of said criminal organization as drug traffickers; moreover, it referred to the type of drug, specifically hydroponic marijuana, cocaine, and synthetic. It considers that the aforementioned judge should have recused himself so as not to be part of the court that judged his client.\n\nHe states that, by virtue of the fact that the accusation was drafted in 2018, Judge Brenes Gómez knew that in that year his client was being investigated in this preliminary inquiry, which he asserts \"from personal experience, where prosecutors, within the same unit, share case details among colleagues, share information from one case to another if necessary and useful.\" He notes that in the first intervention order, Brenes Gómez was authorized to carry out any investigative diligence. He points out \"that the same judge (at that time a prosecutor), at the moment of affirming in his accusation against the police officer, that my client and Mr. [Name 050] were drug traffickers, also knew details of the new investigation, which he himself adjudicated and sentenced, the sentence being appealed today.\" He argues that to accuse the former police officer, it was necessary to become aware of the content of the information contained in the case file in which his client was being investigated, which is detailed on folio 121 of the case, because the investigating judge handed over all the communications and transcripts of the case against his client. He argues that in the psyche of a prosecutor, an entire criminal picture is created of the persons who are being or have been investigated. He analyzes that the trial court, when resolving the challenge filed against Judge Cristian, stated \"what is in Don Cristian's psyche?\" [sic]. He deems it valid to pose the same question regarding Judge Brenes Gómez, who had unrestricted access to the evidence.\n\nHe points out that in the accusation, Brenes Gómez referred to the drug sale points, specifically \"Las Tenis\", \"Garabito\", and \"El Pani\", located in León XIII, Tibás, which are the same ones under controversy in this case, which is why he states that Judge Brenes Gómez knew the details of the investigation carried out at that time against his client and [Nombre 050]. He indicates that it is not possible to dismiss the possibility that the judge had a personal conviction that [Nombre 001] was a drug trafficker, based on his prior knowledge. He notes that \"*On two occasions recusal motions were filed against him, it is strange and curious that he did not remember the statements he made at that time regarding [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050]*\". He deems it possible that the full conviction about [Nombre 001] led him to convince the other judges to issue a conviction, even for crimes that were not charged against some of the defendants. He points out that the judge's omission implies harm to the State's coffers due to the high cost of the trial. He adds that the accused has exceeded 4 years in pretrial detention (prisión preventiva), which he describes as an act of torture, especially because a retrial (reenvío) means his situation will not be resolved soon. He emphasizes that in this case it is not possible to consider that the accused persons were tried by an impartial authority. He asserts that the procedural tools of judicial self-disqualification (excusa) and recusal (recusación) were not used by Judge Brenes Gómez, to the detriment of his client and of [Nombre 050], who was tried in absentia.\n\nRegarding the grievance, it states that the principle of natural judge, impartiality, and objectivity was violated, which resulted in a conviction and the imposition of a custodial sentence. It requests that the judgment be annulled and a retrial (juicio de reenvío) be ordered; furthermore, that the accused's release be ordered. It considers that the order to extend the pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) is also tainted, having been ordered by a court that was not impartial. It details that the pretrial detention period served by its client has already reached half the sentence, and therefore requests that this matter be assessed. It offers evidence in support of its action.\n\nFourth ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) against the judgment filed by Máster Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense counsel for [Nombre 016]. \"Violation of the principles of natural judge, impartiality, and objectivity.\" The technical defense of [Nombre 016] alleges failure to observe articles 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 26 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 14.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, articles 35 and 42 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and numbers 6, 55, and 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). It argues that, at the trial hearing on May 2, 2024, as the trial was about to begin, the then technical defense counsel Simón Angulo Arredondo recused judges Christian Álvarez Campos and Leonardo Brenes Gómez based on the provisions of subsection f) of number 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). Regarding the reason for the recusal, it indicates that it was alleged that both were among the judges authorized to hear the interception of communications. Furthermore, with respect to Judge Álvarez, it was also stated that he had received a progress report on the investigation in the year 2018.\n\nIn his appeal, Mr. Soto Aguilar transcribes the reasons given by attorney Angulo Arredondo and by the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office on the point, as well as the reasons why Judge Brenes Gómez rejected the recusal motion filed against him (cf. fs. 7326 front – 7328 front). The defense counsel points out that, contrary to Judge Álvarez Campos, who reported on his specific involvement and considered that he should recuse himself from hearing the case, Judge Leonardo Brenes processed, in his capacity as prosecutor, case no. 16-000137-1219-PE, brought against [Nombre 057], for procuring impunity. Said summary proceedings originated from case no. 16-000451219-PE, in which a criminal organization comprised of [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] was being investigated. The defense argues that, in case no. 16-000137-1219-PE, Judge Brenes Gómez —formerly a prosecutor— drafted an accusation in which he would have stated that [Nombre 017] and [Nombre 001], together with other persons, \"formed a criminal group dedicated exclusively to the commercialization of different unauthorized drugs […] in the localities of San José, Tibás, León XIII, in the neighborhoods known as 'Las Tenis', 'Garabito' and 'El Pani' and the province of Limón\" [sic] (cf. 7329 front of the main file). Furthermore, in points 7 and 9 of the referenced accusation, it was indicated that on June 16, 2016, [Nombre 057] left a communication open in which the planning of a raid was being discussed, with the aim of procuring the impunity of those investigated in case no. 16-00045-1219-PE, among them [Nombre 001], and that the raid was aborted because one of those investigated learned of the operation, which caused the drugs stored at Finca Dondonia in Limón to be moved to another location (cf. f. 7329 back).\n\nFrom the above, the appellant infers that by the year 2018, when he drafted the accusation in the case against [Nombre 057], Judge Brenes Gómez knew that both [Nombre 016] and [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 017] were being investigated in the case he later tried.\n\nHe adds that he even appears as authorized to manage any investigative diligence in the initial request for telephone intervention found on folio 6 of the first volume of the telephone intervention file, corresponding to the preliminary investigation under examination (No. 18-104-1219-PE). Based on this situation, the technical defense concludes that “at the moment of affirming in his accusation against the police agent that [Nombre 001] and my client Mr. [Nombre 050] were drug traffickers, he also knew details of the new investigation, which he himself tried and sentenced, the sentence being appealed today” (f. 7330 vto.). Mr. Soto Aguilar mentions various rulings in which it is affirmed that there must not be the slightest doubt about the impartiality of the judge, and that the list of grounds for excuse and recusal (excusa y recusación) is illustrative and not exhaustive (rulings No. 1146-05, 256-05, and 945-04 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; rulings No. 7531-97 and No. 4727-98 of the Constitutional Chamber, among others). He argues that, although the parties were unaware of Judge Leonardo Brenes’s performance as an instructing prosecutor in case No. 16000137-1219-PE, which is why they did not include it among the grounds for the recusal (recusación) filed against him, his intervention in this matter affected the fundamental rights of [Nombre 050], who, even in absentia, was tried for the reasons indicated in the first appeal claim against the sentence filed on behalf of [Nombre 016]. He indicates that the responsibility for the acts imputed to [Nombre 050] was the basis for the conviction handed down against his sister, [Nombre 016]. As a grievance, he maintains that a correct application of procedural and substantive norms would have led to the acquittal of his client. He requests that the appealed ruling be declared ineffective and, based on that, that a new trial be ordered (cfr. f. 7333 fte.). The complaints are declared without merit. The principle of the natural and impartial judge, derived from Articles 8.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 14.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is one of the fundamental pillars of due process. This guarantee ensures that every person subjected to a judicial process is tried by independent, objective judges with no personal interests in the case, that is, who have no personal connection to the cause, who have not previously compromised their judgment, and who harbor no prejudices in favor of or against any of the parties. It seeks to ensure that the administrator of justice acts with neutrality, guided solely by the law and the circumstances of the case, in order to proscribe arbitrariness. To fulfill this purpose, the assignment of cases must be based on objective and pre-established criteria. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has indicated that this principle has two dimensions: the subjective, which refers to the judge’s internal conviction and the absence of prejudice; and the objective, which refers to the verifiable circumstances or facts that may cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality.\n\nIn the case before us, the defenders of the parties [Name 001] and [Name 016] allege that this guarantee was violated by the intervention of Judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez, as part of the court that heard at trial the case brought against their clients. They point out several circumstances: (i) an agreement between the Public Prosecutor's Office and the aforementioned judge to process a motion for his disqualification and ensure that he continued hearing the case; (ii) the background of Judge Brenes Gómez, who served as a prosecutor when this preliminary investigation was being processed and was able to learn of its contents; (iii) the statements contained in the indictment in case 16-000045-1219-PE, prepared by Judge Brenes Gómez, in his capacity as prosecutor, in which the investigated parties [Name 001] and [Name 050] were alluded to as members of a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking. In order to respond to the complaint, it is necessary to recount relevant actions. The first thing that must be pointed out is that in this matter a previous call to oral and public trial was made, the holding of which was ordered between July 19 and October 30, 2023, as stated in vote no. 1-2023, at 2:11 p.m. on July 4, 2023 (cf. pages 82 to 83 of the admissibility hearing file). However, as a result of the filing of a judicial consultation on constitutionality by two of the judges in charge of the debate, specifically Freddy Calderón Chaves and Virginia Valverde Delgado, the proceeding was suspended (cf. pages 4591 to 4596 of the main file). As a result of the foregoing, the Public Prosecutor's Office sought the recusal of the entire court, composed of judges Freddy Calderón Chaves, Virginia Valverde Delgado and Leonardo Brenes Gómez, based on the fact that, in order to raise the consultation, they must have learned of the contents of the case file.\n\nIn the case of Judge Brenes Gómez, it was also reported that he appeared as authorized in the requests for interception of communications managed by the Fiscalía General de la República, despite the fact that he was not working for the Ministerio Público and that all of the actions pertaining to the investigation were carried out by prosecutor José Pablo Jiménez Trejos (cf. pp. 4691 to 4597 of the main case file). In the hearing of July 29, 2023, the Ministerio Público orally presented the recusal (recusación), as verified in the audio and video file 180001041219PE27072023094452-2_Multi—0. On that occasion, the prosecutor in charge emphasized that, even though the consultation was formulated only by Judges Calderón Chaves and Valverde Delgado, the recusal was filed against the entire panel, including Judge Brenes Gómez, because it was a collegiate court. It was added that, if Judge Brenes Gómez did not participate in the substantive discussion required for the filing of the consultation, the excusal (excusa) would also proceed because the court would have become disintegrated. He reiterated that the name of Judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez appeared in the requests for intervention of communications and stressed that the circumstance was reported in an exercise of transparency with the other parties in the proceeding. All of the defense attorneys present opposed the motion. The recused judges submitted a report, which is contained in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-27072023104926-2_Multi—2.\n\nAs relevant, Judge Brenes Gómez rejected the grounds for excuse, because he did not sign the constitutional consultation and was not familiar with the merits of the preliminary investigation. Regarding the fact that his name appeared among the authorized prosecutors in the documentation related to the communication interceptions, he clarified that in the past he served in the position of prosecutor of the Public Ministry and that in the year 2018 he was assigned to the Drug Trafficking Prosecutor's Office. He detailed that as of September 2018 he began judicial appointments; later he returned to the Public Ministry and conducted a trial from March 6 to May 16, 2019, in the locality of Alajuela; after June 10, 2019, he was again appointed judge and in May 2020 he transferred to the Third Chamber, where he served as a legal clerk and, while in that position, he was permanently appointed as a judge in the Courts of Justice of Pérez Zeledón. He clarified that he was not familiar with the content of this case, did not provide functional direction, and did not perform any action within it. By means of resolution 5-R-2023, of 2:30 p.m. on July 27, 2023, recorded in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-270720230241152_Multi—0, the Court of the Specialized Jurisdiction against Organized Crime, with a different composition, unanimously rejected the challenge filed against Judge Brenes Gómez. As grounds, it indicated that, contrary to what was alleged by the party filing the challenge, it is not necessary to learn the content of the case file in order to file a constitutional consultation. Regarding the appearance of the judge's name as authorized in the documentation related to the telephone interceptions, it indicated that the Public Ministry itself argued that Brenes Gómez did not participate in the investigation and, for that reason, the excuse was not proper. It also considered that, according to what was reported by Judge Brenes Gómez, in the year 2018 he was making appointments as a judge and in his capacity as a prosecutor he participated in a trial in Alajuela (cf. pp. 4666 to 4670).\n\nThe recusal motion against the remaining members of the tribunal was also rejected by majority vote; however, the trial was not held on that occasion but was rescheduled by resolution issued at 2:43 p.m. on March 11, 2024, which ordered it to be held from May 2 to June 24, 2024 (cf. f. 5006 of the main case file). On this new occasion, the trial was conducted by a panel composed of judges Christian Espinoza Pizarro, Leonardo Brenes Gómez, and Christian Álvarez Campos. At the first hearing, recorded in the audio and video file 180001041219PE02052024015315-2_Multi—0, the private defense attorney Simón Angulo Arredondo, who represented defendants [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 033], filed a recusal motion against judges Brenes Gómez and Álvarez Campos. Regarding the first of them, the only one relevant to the resolution of the appeal, he emphasized that he appeared as having authorized access to the case file and may have reviewed the information contained therein. He clarified that the judge had previously been recused for the same reason and had been retained in his position. The motion was supported by the private defense attorney Víctor Obando Mendoza, who represented [Nombre 016].\n\nOn the other hand, private defense counsel Luis Cubillo Pacheco, representing [Name 001], challenged judge Christian Álvarez Campos, but not judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez, regarding whom he expressly stated: \"this representation has raised absolutely nothing related to judge Leonardo Brenes.\" The Public Prosecutor's Office opposed the motion by pointing out, as relevant, the following: \"Clarify 3 important points: first, the challenge of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which was already discussed now in this hearing, was not discussed in the morning. There are two aspects regarding that challenge, aspect number one is that indeed the Public Prosecutor's Office had already alerted that Mr. Leonardo Brenes's name appeared in a request for telephone intervention in the case's proceedings, not because he handled the case, but because in the list of persons, potentially authorized, who could potentially intervene in the process, the names of all the Public Prosecutor's Office officials are included in the event that the official in charge of the case, in this case Pablo Jiménez, is unable to perform some task, because we are human and anyone can get sick or whatever, so the Public Prosecutor's Office always pre-authorizes all prosecutorial officials who at that time are appointed as such in the Narcotics Prosecutor's Office. That is why Leonardo appears in that initial intervention request, not because he had knowledge of the case, not because he participated in any proceeding, and not because he had knowledge or was briefed on the case, but the Public Prosecutor's Office had already alerted to that. So in that sense, to try at that time to correct procedures and resolve that topic once and for all, the Public Prosecutor's Office also has to be objective and it was under that objectivity that said incident was filed at that time, effectively as the Public Prosecutor's Office had already advanced it, in the sense that it was simply filed to correct; however, the Public Prosecutor's Office already outright handled the possibility that it would be resolved, as it was resolved, which was indeed, that it caused no prejudice to the processing of the case and specifically, to this trial, that Mr. Leonardo actively participated in the trial, in the debate, because he was never briefed on the process, that is, the same thing that is being alleged today by Mr. Simón is the same thing that at that time the Public Prosecutor had already advanced and had brought to the attention of the parties so that everyone knew about Leonardo's situation and his name in the request, and it was already resolved by the JEDO court, saying the challenge was rejected, indicating it does not proceed, because he was not briefed, it is simply a name in a document that has no relevance to the expediente, that has already been evaluated\" [sic] (emphasis added). The record in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-02052024034410-2_Multi—0 contains the report rendered by the challenged judges. At that time, Judge Brenes Gómez highlighted that the issue had already been previously resolved by another section of the court.\n\nFinally, in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-02052024034410-2_Multi—1, resolution no. 85-R-2024 of 15:24 hours on May 2, 2024, of the Tribunal Especializado en Delincuencia Organizada, is recorded, whereby the excuse filed against Judge Christian Álvarez was accepted and that filed against Judge Brenes Gómez was rejected. Regarding the latter, it was determined that the matter had been previously resolved by another panel of the tribunal, in resolution 5-R-2023, of 14:30 hours on July 27, 2023, and therefore a new ruling on the matter was not appropriate. From the entire account provided, several circumstances must be highlighted.\n\nThe first is that this Tribunal considers that the statement by the Ministerio Público, to the effect that it had “advanced” matters relating to the recusal, does not allow for the inference of any collusion between the prosecutor and Judge Brenes Gómez to manipulate what would be resolved in this new opportunity. The context in which that statement was made must be considered, since the prosecutor was recounting that, on a prior occasion, at his instance, a recusal against Judge Brenes Gómez was heard, which he pursued with the aim of informing the parties that the official's name appeared in some documents that were part of the case file, not because he considered that this circumstance compromised the judge's impartiality. That is, what emerges from the proceeding by the Ministerio Público is that its sole intention was to alert the parties and thus avoid future challenges, not because it considered that the removal of Judge Brenes Gómez was warranted. By virtue of the foregoing, within the horizon of possibilities that presented itself, the rejection of the proceeding was foreseeable, as indeed occurred. In no way can what the defense refers to be extracted, in the sense that there existed a collusive arrangement between the officials, which is why an assertion of that nature is clearly reckless and unfounded. It is worth recalling, for greater abundance, that the recused judge is not the one who determines his continued involvement or not in the hearing of a summary proceeding, but rather his intervention is limited to the rendering of a report in which he accepts or rejects the proceeding. Jurisdiction to resolve the incidental matter lies with the remaining members of the tribunal, when it concerns collegiate bodies, and in the specific case of the Tribunal de Juicio of the Jurisdicción Especializada contra la Delincuencia Organizada, with a collegiate panel, who, as already indicated, rejected the recusal.\n\nIn summary, no circumstance emerges that would cast doubt on the correct processing of the recusal (recusación) filed against Judge Brenes Gómez at the start of the trial of this summary proceeding. As a second aspect to address, with respect to the employment history of Judge Brenes Gómez and the possibility that he may have become aware of the content of this summary proceeding beforehand, this Court finds that there is also no objective evidence to support this. To respond to this argument and based on what has already been outlined, it is necessary to bring up what was stated by Judge Brenes Gómez in the report rendered on July 29, 2023, regarding the positions he held within the Judicial Branch (Poder Judicial) in 2018. He specifically reported that, starting in September 2018, he began his function as a judge, with various appointments to Judge 3 and Judge 4 positions. He detailed that in 2019 he continued in jurisdictional functions and that, in the capacity of prosecutor (fiscal), he conducted a trial in the locality of Alajuela from March 6 to May 16, 2019. Subsequently, he continued holding judge appointments; he was then appointed legal counsel (letrado) of the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) in May 2020, where he remained until he was finally appointed as a tenured judge of the Republic in the Trial Courts of Pérez Zeledón. Now, the first record of this summary proceeding in the case file consists of the preliminary report IP-297-EN-18, dated October 19, 2018, addressed to prosecutor Pablo Jiménez Trejos, of the Deputy Prosecutor's Office against Organized Crime, Complex Processing Division (cfr. pages 1 to 87 of the main dossier).\n\nIn the section \"Notitia criminis\" the report states \"As your authority is aware, in the month of September of this year we, the undersigned, communicated to you confidential information that entered our office in which we were informed about a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking […]\" (cf. f. 2 of the main case file). From the foregoing it can be deduced that, at the time this case formally entered the Adjunta de Narcotráfico Prosecutor's Office, with the filing of the first police report IP-297-EN-18, dated October 19, 2018, the judicial official Brenes Gómez was not working regularly in the Ministerio Público, given that he had begun his duties as a judge of the Republic. This latter aspect is relevant, because the appearance of the official Brenes Gómez as an authorized party in the telephone interceptions processed in this preliminary investigation, does not stem from his being involved in the investigation — there is no evidence to that effect — but rather from a judicial practice consisting of authorizing all officials of an office to perform various acts, as a precaution against the possibility that the person designated as the lead investigator may be unable to continue handling the matter. Based on the foregoing, there is no objective basis from which it can be derived that the official Brenes Gómez became aware of the contents of this case, when he held the status of prosecutor of the Ministerio Público, prior to his permanent appointment as a judge of the Republic. The third topic of interest refers to the accusation brought by Leonardo Brenes Gómez in the year 2018, in his capacity as prosecutor of the Ministerio Público, within preliminary investigation 16-000045-1219-PE. This Court considers that, contrary to what was alleged by the appellants, a compromise of his impartiality is not verified.\n\nThe defense states that when the official Leonardo Brenes Gómez held the position of prosecutor, he filed an accusation in which he asserted that [Name 001] and the co-defendant [Name 017] [Name 016] were drug traffickers, a circumstance about which he remained silent, even though he should have recused himself. In that regard, the appellant points out: \"Judge Leonardo Brenes should also have disclosed the circumstance that is now known and argued, (that in 2018, while serving as prosecutor and with another investigation already pending against my client and [Name 050], he filed an accusation in which he asserted that both individuals were drug traffickers)\" (cf. f. 7173 of the main file). Similarly, Master Manuel Soto Aguilar stated that \"with another investigation pending against my client [Name 050] and Mr. [Name 001], Judge Brenes Gómez filed an accusation in which he asserted that both individuals were drug traffickers; however, he omitted to disclose it because he knew the procedural consequences it would entail\" [sic] (cf. fs. 7328 front and back of the main file).\n\nBy resolution no. 2025-0005, issued at 3:40 p.m. on May 6, 2025, this Tribunal admitted as evidence the certified copy of case 16-000137-1219-PE, brought against [Nombre 057], which was offered by the private defense attorneys Francisco Mena Ayales and Manuel Soto Aguilar to support the present claim (cf. pp. 7782 to 7783). From that evidence, the accusation filed against [Nombre 057] for the crime of procuring impunity stands out, which was, in fact, prepared by the then-prosecutor Leonardo Brenes Gómez. The document was dated July 18, 2018, and the record shows that the case file was received by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José on July 20, 2018, to begin the intermediate stage (cf. pp. 21 to 30 of main file part 6 and 1 to 17 of main file part 7 according to the digital file). In addition, it is verified that the preliminary hearing of that summary proceeding was held on August 21, 2018, at which time the accused [Nombre 057] accepted an abbreviated special procedure (cf. pp. 370 to 371 of the digital file called Expediente completo digital). From the comparison of these dates, it can be inferred that, when the then-prosecutor Leonardo Brenes Gómez filed the accusation in case 16-000137-1219-PE against [Nombre 057] in the month of July 2018, the Public Prosecutor's Office did not yet have knowledge of the existence of the investigation of the present summary proceeding, because it was not until two months later, in September of that year, that the information was transmitted to the prosecutor José Pablo Jiménez, through functional direction—as detailed above—.\n\nThus, the assertion by the appellants that the official Brenes Gómez, at the time of drafting the accusation in summary proceeding (sumaria) 16-000137-1219-PE, had knowledge that his clients were being investigated in the present case has no basis. Furthermore, regarding the content of the accusation brought against [Nombre 057] in the summary proceeding (sumaria) 16-000137-1219-PE, the defense argues that the prosecutor at the time, Brenes Gómez, labeled [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] as drug traffickers, setting forth his personal considerations regarding them, in addition to mentioning types of drugs and locations where the criminal activity was carried out, data which coincide with the present summary proceeding (sumaria), which is why he should have recused himself. As has been outlined by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), the grounds for excuse and recusal (excusa y recusación) contained in Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) do not constitute an exhaustive list, but rather it is possible to evaluate other scenarios when doubts exist regarding the impartiality of the adjudicator. However, the doubt that gives rise to challenges of this nature cannot be any subjective suspicion, conjecture, or based on mere perceptions of the parties; rather, it must be reasonably and objectively founded, that is, it must be based on verifiable circumstances that, from the perspective of an impartial observer, could generate a legitimate fear regarding the judge's neutrality with respect to the proceeding. Starting from an objective system provided by law for the constitution of the courts of justice and the designation of judges, the good faith actions of the latter are presumed. In that regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Corte Interamericana sobre Derechos Humanos), in the case of Usón Ramírez vs. Venezuela, established that \"117 […] The personal or subjective impartiality is presumed unless there is proof to the contrary.\" The foregoing is relevant because, furthermore, the judicial system must protect itself from abuses that can lead to destabilizing judicial proceedings through unfounded recusals or challenges promoted by the parties. It is therefore necessary to strike an adequate balance between the right to an impartial judge and the integrity of the justice administration system. After a meticulous study of the complaint, as well as the documentation of interest, this Court considers that the defense is likewise incorrect on this point. It is necessary to contextualize the information derived from the evidence admitted for the resolution of the appeal. As already indicated, through resolution No. 2025-0005, of 3:40 p.m. on May 6, 2025, this Court admitted as evidence the certified copy of case 16-000137-1219-PE, against [Nombre 057], as a result of the offer made by private defense attorneys Francisco Mena Ayales and Manuel Soto Aguilar. In said summary proceeding (sumaria), the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público), represented by Leonardo Brenes Gómez, investigated and formulated an accusation against [Nombre 057], an investigator of the Drug Control Police (Policía de Control de Drogas), based on Article 62 of Law No. 8204, for procuring the impunity of persons under investigation in the summary proceeding (sumaria) 16-000045-1219-PE, among them [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050], for the alleged crime of drug trafficking. In the charging document (requerimiento acusatorio) it was stated, in relevant part, the following: \"2.\n\nIn the previously named Adjunta Contra la Delincuencia Organizada, in the period between February 2016 and May 2017, case number 16-000045-1219-PE was processed for the crime of Drug Trafficking, in which the following appeared as investigated parties: [Nombre 001] alias \"[Nombre 084]\", [Nombre 060] alias \"[Nombre 061]\", [Nombre 062] alias \"[Nombre 063]\", [Nombre 064], [Nombre 050] alias \"[Nombre 065]\", [Nombre 066] alias \"[Nombre 067]\", [Nombre 068] alias \"[Nombre 069]\", [Nombre 070] alias \"[Nombre 071]\", [Nombre 072] alias \"[Nombre 073]\", [Nombre 074] alias \"[Nombre 075]\", [Nombre 076] and [Nombre 077], who formed a criminal group dedicated exclusively to the commercialization of various unauthorized drugs, including hydroponic or cripy marijuana, cocaine hydrochloride, and synthetic drugs, in the localities of San José, Tibás, León XIII, in the neighborhoods known as \"Las Tenis,\" \"Garabito,\" and \"El Pani,\" and the province of Limón […] 7. Notwithstanding, on June 16, 2016, at around 9:25 a.m., the defendant [Nombre 057], with the aim of securing impunity for the investigated parties [Nombre 001] alias \"[Nombre 084]\", [Nombre 060] alias \"[Nombre 061]\", [Nombre 062] alias \"[Nombre 063]\", [Nombre 064], [Nombre 050] alias \"[Nombre 065]\", [Nombre 066] alias \"[Nombre 067]\", [Nombre 068] alias \"[Nombre 069]\", [Nombre 070] alias \"[Nombre 071]\", [Nombre 072] alias \"[Nombre 073]\", [Nombre 074] alias \"[Nombre 075]\", [Nombre 076] and [Nombre 077] and a subject identified only by the alias \"[Nombre 078]\", using cellphone number [Valor 061] with the IMEI 359792057305160 device, called the intercepted number [Valor 062], used by the investigated party [Nombre 066] \"alias [Nombre 067]\". During the communication, he asked for \"[Nombre 079]\" and subsequently left the ambient audio open, in which the head of the Limón Drug Control Police delegation could be heard discussing aspects of the raid (allanamiento) to be executed, an action contrary to the duties entrusted to him as a public official […] 9. As a consequence of the action carried out by the defendant [Nombre 057], the raid (allanamiento) in case 16-000902-0472-PE was not executed, because due to the leak of information, one of the investigated parties who was staying at the property to be raided in Dondonia, Limón, learned that said raid (allanamiento) was going to be carried out, which caused the drugs stored there to be moved to another location by the criminal group\" [sic] (cf. fs. 22 to 25 of the file identified as Legajo principal part 6). Several circumstances must be highlighted. Summary proceedings 16-000045-1219PE, in which [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] appeared as investigated parties, was not instructed by the then prosecutor Leonardo Brenes Gómez, but by prosecutor José Arturo Dinarte Gutiérrez. This is detailed in the evidence offering of the accusation in the aforementioned cause, testimonial evidence section, point 8 (cf. f.\n\n4 of the file named Legajo principal parte 7), so it is not possible to assert that Judge Brenes Gómez acted as the accuser of those subjects in the past. The references made regarding the membership of [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] in a criminal organization were made in the context of the accusation drafted against the Drug Control Police investigator [Nombre 057] and in order to illustrate what the offense attributed to the latter consisted of. That is, they were not personal considerations of the official Leonardo Brenes Gómez — as the appellants claimed — but a statement made in the functions proper to the position he held as a prosecutor of the Public Ministry. Now, to reproach Judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez for not having recused himself from hearing this disciplinary case, based on his prior participation in drafting the aforementioned accusatory request, it would be necessary to assume that, at the time of the trial — six years later — he remembered in detail the content of said document. However, it is reiterated, the trial in this case was held six years after the preparation of the accusation, so it is entirely logical that he did not remember, with the precision required by the defense, the content of the request. The foregoing makes even more sense considering that, as already noted, [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] were not the persons being investigated, nor accused at that time by the official Brenes Gómez, but rather the mention of their names was solely in the context of a general description of the crime attributed to a third party.\n\nTo accept the defense's argument, it would be necessary to assume that Judge Brenes Gómez—or any other judge of the Republic who previously served as a prosecutor—was obligated to keep an exhaustive record of all persons mentioned in their requests as potential perpetrators of a crime. One cannot reasonably demand that a judge remember all the cases they have heard in the past, much less that they keep a systematic record of all persons prosecuted in the cases with which they have had contact. Furthermore, a record of such a nature could compromise the judge's objectivity in the future, in open violation of the right to be forgotten (derecho al olvido), in addition to representing an excessive burden for the system of administration of justice. Moreover, it must be taken into consideration that the Judicial Branch has a limited number of judges, which makes it possible for the same judge to face the trial of the same person in another proceeding. If one assumes that the mere intervention in a prior case against the same person is sufficient grounds to doubt a judge's impartiality, it would also imply that the judicial system must create and maintain detailed controls of the cases pursued against a person throughout their entire life, even if they were not charged and tried, as well as of all judicial officers who had any contact with the matter, which, beyond the material limitations it entails, would clearly violate the fundamental rights of persons who have served as defendants (imputadas) in criminal proceedings, due to the existence of an institutional memory parallel to the official records, which would not be subject to time limitations.\n\nIt is worth clarifying that the mere intervention of a judge in a prior proceeding pursued against a defendant (imputado) or even in prior phases of the same proceeding, for example, in the capacity of prosecutor (fiscal), as occurs in this case, does not automatically generate an impact on their impartiality; rather, a case-by-case analysis must be conducted to determine the content and scope of that participation. Those examples are brought up because, although none are equivalent to the situation presented in this case—because the truth is that there is no proof that official Brenes Gómez acted as accuser of [Name 001] and [Name 050] when he held the position of prosecutor—they are the ones that can be considered closest and most useful as they bear some resemblance to the present matter. Regarding the participation of the same judge in prior cases pursued against the same defendant (imputado), the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution no. 2022-1134, of 10:55 a.m. on November 4, 2022, stated: \"The first aspect to highlight is that, despite noting the intervention of Judge […] in a prior proceeding pursued against the petitioner for acts of the same nature, that circumstance, by itself, is not sufficient to cast doubt on his impartiality. Observe that, from the review conducted of international and constitutional regulations, it follows that the guarantee of impartiality implies that the same judge cannot preside in various instances for the same matter. None of the instruments alluded to indicate that the judge cannot hear various proceedings against the same defendant (imputado), since his investiture obligates him to be objective and to base his decisions on the existing legal framework (marco jurídico), as well as on the particularities of the matters presented to him. In case of doubt, the procedural code has provided a series of mechanisms for the judge, on his own initiative or at the request of a party, to withdraw from a specific proceeding. The foregoing through excusal (excusa) and recusal (recusación), which may be promoted based on one of the hypotheses established in numeral 55 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other that may generate a reasonable doubt about the purity of the judge's judgment. It is worth noting that none of these incidents were raised during the debate of criminal case 17-000141-0332-PE, pursued against the petitioner and which resulted in the issuance of the sentence now under review. Having said the above, it must be concluded that the simple participation of Judge [Name 001] in a prior proceeding pursued against the same defendant (imputado) does not imply, per se, a reason to doubt his impartiality, and consequently, his intervention in the proceeding from which the questioned sentence derived is not contrary to the legal system.\" In a similar vein, we observe judgment no. 2012-923, of 09:45 a.m. on June 15, 2012, also from the Third Chamber: \"[…] in the particular case and after weighing the complaint, this Chamber concludes that the alleged defect is non-existent. Although on the very day the debate began to hear the acts accused against [Name 080], said co-judge (cojueza) formed part of the Tribunal—with a different composition—that heard another factual framework (marco fáctico) against the same accused, the truth is that said situation does not constitute the procedural defect being claimed. The complainant does not manage to demonstrate that Ms. Chaves López was prejudiced against the defendant (justiciable) for having sentenced him for acts different from those now subjected to criticism at the cassation level. The foregoing, by itself, does not constitute a circumstance that affects or influences the impartiality or objectivity that was required of the judge.\"\n\nIn reality, the private defense attorney merely points out that she, a priori, had already formed a “criterion” (criterio) regarding the accused, based on the prior conviction (sentencia condenatoria anterior) in which she participated, but without conclusively demonstrating whether, throughout the trial or in the judgment (sentencia) rendered, her assessment had any effect or incidence in the terms he proposes, which, in any event, is not verified in the present matter. As can be confirmed from listening to the audiovisual files that record the delivery of the oral ruling against the accused, the sentencing decision and the penalty imposed were based solely on the evidence presented at trial, without any mention of the outcome of the other case cited by the complainant. Even, as will be analyzed in Considering III regarding the reasoning for the penalty, the judges weighed the defendant’s status as a first-time offender.\n\nLikewise, even taking into account the resolution of this Chamber, number 1034-2005, cited by the appellant in his writ of appeal, there is no evidence of any reasonable suspicion that Licenciada Chaves López was not free from contamination by having recently tried [Name 080], which would have affected her purity of criterion when facing the new case against the accused. In light of the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that, in this case, the circumstance that one of the members of the Penal Tribunal of the First Judicial Circuit of Guanacaste, Liberia, had participated in a previous trial with a different accusation against the same defendant does not constitute a violation of the principles of impartiality and objectivity of the Judge, which is why the objection is rejected» (Emphasis added). In the previous precedent, the case of a judge who issued a conviction against a defendant for the crime of aggravated robbery and who, after concluding that trial, enters another with the same defendant for different acts, but with the same legal classification, was analyzed, and it is concluded that the mere intervention in another matter against the same accused person does not constitute, automatically, a compromise of impartiality, but rather there must be an element that, objectively, casts doubt on the neutrality of the judge when facing the new matter, a criterion this Chamber shares. With this same logic, at the international level, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, in the case Alexandru Marian Iancu vs Romania, of February 4, 2020, where the impartiality was questioned due to the intervention of the same judge in two different cases against the same defendant, for similar acts and even with common evidence (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-200729%22]}). On that occasion, the Court indicated that, in the absence of evidence showing personal partiality, the matter should be analyzed from the perspective of the objective impartiality test (cf. paragraph 66). It established that, beyond the similarity of the two proceedings, the judge's conduct did not justify the applicant's fears regarding his impartiality (cf. paragraph 72). This last precedent is relevant because it shows that, even in those cases where a judge has tried a person for similar acts, that circumstance, in itself, should not give rise to a questioning of the judge's impartiality, if it is not accompanied by evidence that allows establishing a true commitment of his criterion, which has not occurred in this case. On the other hand, it is important to point out that case 16-000045-1219-PE and the present preliminary proceedings (sumaria) are completely independent, even though there may be coincidence in some information. Note that in the present matter, no mention is made, nor is data from the previous case used as background, which finally concluded with a request for dismissal (solicitud de desestimación) managed by the instructing prosecutor Arturo Dinarte, (cf. pp. 579 to 584 of the file named Expediente-160000451219PECompleto). Furthermore, more than a year elapsed between both matters, since the request for dismissal of case 16-000045-1219-PE was dated April 4, 2017, which marked the closure of the investigation; whereas the present matter began at the police level in April 2018 and within the Public Ministry, as already noted, in September of that same year. The investigation was even under the charge of diverse specialized police forces, since the preliminary proceedings (sumaria) 16-0000451219-PE was processed by the Drug Control Police, while the present one was handled by the Narcotics Section of the Judicial Investigation Organization. Furthermore, with the exception of the mention of [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050], the groups of persons investigated were not the same. By virtue of the foregoing, it is not possible to affirm that the same acts were investigated in the two proceedings. Based on the considerations set forth, this Chamber concludes that it is not possible to objectively derive a founded doubt about the impartiality of Judge Brenes Gómez at the time he conducted the trial of the present preliminary proceedings, insofar as it is not possible to infer the existence of a prejudice on his part regarding the criminal liability of the accused persons. As a result of the foregoing, the fifth ground of the appeal brief (recurso de apelación) filed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales and the fourth ground of the challenge (impugnación) filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar are hereby declared without merit (sin lugar).\n\nFirst ground of the appeal of the judgment filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030]. He alleges \"Improper application of the rules contained in Articles 1, 2, 4, 6, 82, and 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), by having set aside the bifurcation (cesura) by decision of a defense attorney and the court.\" The defense counsel argues that, pursuant to the provisions of numbers 323, 324, 357, and 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the holding of the trial in two phases was authorized in this matter: one aimed at analyzing the existence of guilt and another dedicated to the individualization of the sentence. He contends that although the bifurcation (cesura) of the trial is optional and in this matter was requested by the defense counsel for co-defendant [Name 001], when its concession was authorized, it had extensive effect for all the accused, such that the agreement benefited everyone equally, insofar as said institution allows for a more detailed analysis of the penalty to be imposed and even permits the accused and their defense counsel to offer evidence for the purposes of the provisions of number 71 of the Penal Code (Código Penal). Despite this, he maintains that the trial court facilitated an approach with the defense counsel for the accused [Name 001], to negotiate the waiver of the bifurcation (cesura), to which the privately retained defense attorney for said defendant agreed, but without seeking the opinion of the other accused and their defense attorneys. The appellant considers that, contrary to what the lower court (a quo) argued, the agreement with the requesting party was not sufficient to continue with the trial in an ordinary manner, because once the bifurcation (cesura) was authorized, it constituted a procedural guarantee in favor of all the accused and not only the one who filed the request. He argues that the exercise of the material defense was affected and, furthermore, points out that procedural rules are a matter of public order, and therefore are not subject to waiver. In light of the provisions of number 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he maintains that there is no legal provision that allows the court to suppress a procedural phase, as occurred in this matter with the elimination of the bifurcation (cesura) once said phase had already been authorized. He indicates that Articles 169 and 177 of the same normative body regulate the possibility of waiving time limits or the claim of relative procedural defects, but outside these specific cases, there is no regulation whatsoever that allows a procedural phase to be waived. The challenger records various doctrinal citations and cites in his favor rulings No. 5507-2000 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and No. 32-A-97 of the former Court of Criminal Cassation (Tribunal de Casación Penal). He concludes that \"having decreed the holding of the trial in two phases, the court lacked the normative power to eliminate this condition upon the mere action of one defendant and his defense, beyond the collective agreement of all the recipients of the process\" (cf. f. 7225). He posits, as a grievance, that the suppressed phase would have allowed his client to argue the imposed penalty in a more profuse and scientific manner and thereby achieve a better justification for the sanction, thus eliminating the possibility of achieving a penalty appropriate to his endogenous and exogenous personal conditions. He requests the annulment of the judgment and a remand for new proceedings (cf. fs. 7219 to 7226).\n\nThird ground of the challenge formulated by [Name 030]. He alleges \"Violation of the right of defense by rendering nugatory the right to discuss the amount of the penalty, through bifurcation (cesura), despite the fact that this right had been granted since the preliminary hearing\" (cf. f. 7393). The appellant argues that he was sentenced to 30 years in prison through a process that disregarded the bifurcation (cesura), despite the fact that it had been authorized during the preliminary hearing by Judge Marjorie Valenciano, in response to the request made by the then privately retained defense attorney for [Name 001]: José Pablo Badilla. He explains that such a decision is contrary to due process and the right of defense, besides modifying the manner of conducting the trial, established since the order to open trial (auto de apertura a juicio) and that the latter is a resolution that lacks recourse. He notes that, while the bifurcation (cesura) was authorized at the instance of the defense of one of the accused, upon approving its implementation, it became a guarantee that benefited all the accused equally, which is why it was not possible to seek only the opinion of the defense counsel of one of the affected parties to decide its elimination, as was done in this matter. He requests, to this effect, that the recording of the first hearing of the adversarial proceeding be verified. [Name 334] alleges that, as an accused, he did not understand the scope of the waiver of the bifurcation (cesura) that his defense attorney had authorized, until the closing arguments stage. He states that this prevented, in a hearing separate from the decision on guilt, \"a series of important arguments in my favor from being presented, which in turn could be taken into account by the Trial Court when imposing a possible prison sentence against me\" (cf. f. 7395). He indicates that the conduct of the lower court (a quo) materialized in the imposition of 30 years in prison, without being able to take into account many of the aspects he intended to present, together with his defense attorney, in the bifurcation (cesura) phase that had been authorized. As a grievance, he refers to the fact that, had those aspects been assessed, much lesser penalties would have been set than those imposed against him (cf. f. 7396).\n\nThe grounds of appeal are dismissed. The procedural institute of bifurcation (cesura) is provided for in ordinal 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states: \"Request for trial to be held in two phases. Within the period provided for in the preceding article, the accused may request that the trial be held in two phases, with the purpose that the first discusses matters concerning the existence of guilt and the second, if it exists, matters relating to the individualization of the penalty and civil consequences. Within that same period, the civil parties may make the same request, but regarding the civil consequences. Before referring the proceedings, the court shall rule on the request. Once the foregoing matters are resolved, the proceedings, the documents, and the seized objects shall be referred to the trial court and the detainees shall be placed at its disposal\" (Emphasis supplied). As is clear from the foregoing provision, it is a procedural mechanism that allows the division of the trial into two phases: in the first, known in the doctrine as the interlocutory on guilt, the existence of the punishable act and the criminal liability of the accused person are debated; while the second corresponds to the punishment stage, in which the penalty to be imposed is discussed and the evidence on the matter is presented, should it have been offered and admitted. This second stage is called the interlocutory on fixing the penalty. In the Costa Rican legal system, the splitting of the trial does not correspond to the natural course of the process, but must be preceded by the request of the accused person before the judge of the intermediate stage, who must rule on the petition prior to referring the case to trial. In this case, it is verified that the defense counsel for accused [Name 001], in the preliminary hearing held on February 27 to 28, 2023, requested that the bifurcation (cesura) be ordered (cf. f. 4110 vto of the main file). Regarding that action, the Criminal Court (Juzgado Penal) of the Second Judicial Circuit, in a resolution at 10:00 a.m. on March 6, 2023, ordered the following: \"VII. CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR BIFURCATION (CESURA). Procedure provided for in number 323 of the C.P.P. In the hearing, Defense Attorney Badilla Villanueva, on behalf of his client [Name 001], requested that the trial be held in two phases and offered evidence. Given that the requirements are met: It was requested by a party legitimately entitled to do so and that party intends to discuss a possible penalty to be imposed; this Court of the Intermediate Phase accepts said petition and orders the trial that has been ordered to be held in two phases.\n\nThe offered testimonial evidence is admitted: -[Name 003] -[Name 081]» [sic] (Highlighting supplied. Cf. f. 4138 front and back of the main file). Subsequently, during the oral and public trial, there were several interventions by the court related to this issue, which must be outlined for the correct resolution of the claim, namely: (i) During the opening of the trial on May 16, 2024, in the first hearing, as recorded in the audio and video file 180001041219PE16052024102400-2_Multi—0, starting at counter 4:50, the presiding judge mentioned the decree of the bifurcation (cesura) in the following terms: «This trial is decreed with bifurcation (cesura), that means for those who are not lawyers and who are the accused persons, right, that means that first, in a first part of the trial process, the issue related to guilt will be resolved and subsequently the issue related to the penalty will have to be analyzed. So, of course, the trial will be separated into two parts, because that is what the procedural rule establishes, so that you take that into account and also have that dynamic with your defense attorneys, of course the Public Prosecutor's Office as well. So in that first part you should be aware of that […] it is clarified, of course, that the bifurcation (cesura) part is uniquely and exclusively with one of the defendants and the second part, if necessary, it is not an exact determination, that is, only if it were necessary». (ii) As can be inferred from the audio and video file identified as 180001041219PE02072024015040-2_Multi—0, in the second hearing on July 2, 2024, upon concluding the testimony of witness [Name 133], the court reviewed the remaining testimonial evidence to be presented and, starting at counter 19:17, stated: «We have two more witnesses offered, but these are for the second stage of the bifurcation (cesura), if that stage were to exist, according to what it says here, Ms. [Name 003] and [Name 081], that is what the minute says. Is that correct, counselor?» Immediately following, the private defense attorney Mena Ayales stated: «That is correct. In the preliminary hearing, those two witnesses were offered by the former defense of my client, but at this time we are going to dispense with them, so the floor should be given to the colleagues and the Public Prosecutor's Office». As can be deduced from the preceding passages, although the court did not issue a warning at that time about the appearance of those deponents, the defense of the defendant [Name 001] requested that they be dispensed with. This petition was heard by the remaining legal representatives, as well as by the Public Prosecutor's Office, without any of them showing opposition; consequently, the witnesses were dispensed with. (iii) In the first hearing on October 14, 2024, and as recorded in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-141020240931462_Multi—1, before beginning the closing arguments stage, the court stated the following: «Just as it had been ordered, the court has indeed corroborated the following, in the case of one of the parties, at least from what we had heard, even I believe it was Mr. Francisco Mena Ayales, in previous circumstances of the proceeding, who had indicated the possibility of a bifurcation (cesura), however, in that trial there was a dispensing of the evidence that was for that possible second part, which was the bifurcation (cesura), so the trial continues in the manner it has been developing and that situation leads us directly to the fact that we are going to begin the conclusive phase, meaning in this case the closing arguments of the Public Prosecutor's Office and subsequently those of the female and male defense attorneys, meaning the defense, for that reason we are going to give the floor to the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office». From the summary provided, it is possible to conclude that, regarding the institution of the bifurcation (cesura), the lower court (a quo) follows the thesis expressed by the Third Chamber in Resolution No. 2000-00376, of 09:55 hours on April 7, 2000, according to which, in those cases where evidence related to the penalty or civil claims does not need to be presented, it is not necessary to carry out the second part of the trial, namely: «It should be added that in order to decide whether the trial is held in two stages or not, the Court must contemplate the reason for being of the bifurcation (cesura), which is found in Article 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This last provision states that the second stage of the trial is especially provided for the individualization of the criminal and civil effects of the punishable act and, what is more important, the second paragraph of the last cited legal provision requires having offered evidence in order to be able to individualize the consequences of the crime. The preceding indicates for what purpose the possibility of dividing the trial into two phases is contemplated. If evidentiary elements especially relevant for the determination of the criminal and civil effects of a crime are not offered, then the application of the bifurcation (cesura) is meaningless» (Highlighting supplied). This Chamber, after a careful assessment of the institution, takes the liberty of disagreeing with the previously stated position, because it considers that, when the bifurcation (cesura) has been ordered, the holding of the interlocutory judgment setting the penalty is not contingent upon the presentation of evidence, not only because Article 323 of the procedural code does not provide for it, but because its reason for being is the broader and more detailed approach to the circumstances that have an impact on the individualization of the sanction to be applied—or the civil consequences, as the case may be—such as the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, application of alternative or accessory penalties, recidivism, unification of penalties, among others. That is, once the bifurcation (cesura) has been agreed upon by judicial resolution, the execution of the second stage depends only on the declaration of guilt. Adding other requirements entails an extensive interpretation of the norm, in contradiction to the provisions of Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows this type of interpretation only when it benefits the participants in the proceeding. On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that, after the judge in the intermediate stage issues a judicial resolution ordering the bifurcation (cesura), the procedure transforms from an ordinary one into a biphasic one, with preclusive effects. The decision is not susceptible to being revoked by the trial court, nor withdrawn by the parties, except for reasons that justify it and due motivation is stated. Furthermore, precisely because a transformation of the proceeding exists, it affects all persons judged jointly, not only those who requested it. The court could not divide the trial only for one or several accused and conduct it in a continuous manner for the remaining accused, for reasons of unity and coherence of the proceeding. The trial is a logical unit in which the facts, the evidence, and the parties are closely linked, in such a way that it would not be possible to fraction it solely as a function of some participants. Bear in mind that when the trial is conducted with bifurcation (cesura), the dynamic changes even from the very summons, because the parties must be cited only to carry out the first part. Thus, Article 324 of the procedural code, in what is relevant, states: «When the holding of the trial in two phases has been ordered, the court shall set the date for the first one. Upon ruling on the guilt, it must set, if necessary, the date for the second hearing, which must take place within the following five days». The execution of the trial is also modified, because requests related to the penalty and civil claims must be reserved for the second part, if it is possible to advance to that stage, just as Article 357 of the same normative body indicates: «Request for penalty and civil damages. If the division of the trial into two phases has not been ordered, the prosecutor and the complainant must request the penalty they deem appropriate, when they request a conviction. The civil plaintiff must specify the amount of damages and losses they estimate to have suffered after the determination made in the preparatory proceeding. When the division has been ordered, those requests must be formulated in the second hearing» (Highlighting supplied). Even the judgment itself is fractionated, because the ruling on guilt must be recorded before the second part of the trial is held. In that sense, Article 359 of the procedural code states: «Trial on the criminal and civil consequences. The trial on the penalty or civil consequences shall begin with the reading of the first part of the judgment. Then the court shall seek conciliation regarding civil claims. Next, the evidence that has been offered to individualize the penalty or the civil consequences shall be received, and it shall proceed, from that point forward, according to the common rules. Upon concluding the trial, the court shall issue the resolution on the penalty and civil liability and shall form the complete judgment, according to the rules provided for that resolution. The period to appeal the judgment shall begin from the integral notification. If a retrial has been ordered only to determine the penalty or the civil consequences, the same rules shall apply» (Highlighting supplied). Given this procedural bifurcation (bifurcación), it is not possible to carry out the bifurcation (cesura) only for some of the accused while maintaining the unity of the trial for others. The foregoing, because in a trial held continuously only for some of the accused, what the judge states regarding them somehow binds and compromises their criterion for the remaining accused, since the individualization of the sanction does not only attend to personal aspects of the person subject to justice—such as, for example, their criminal record or socioeconomic condition—but also includes objective elements potentially common to all the accused—for instance, the circumstances of time, place, and manner of the act, as well as the importance of the harm or danger caused—. It is thus that the decision to conduct a bifurcation (cesura) or to maintain the resolution of all issues in a single phase cannot be partial; rather, it must encompass all of the incriminated persons. Bear in mind, in this regard, that the criterion adopted when setting the penalty for a part of the defendants could affect the person or persons who promoted the trial by bifurcation (cesura), seeking a deeper or more paused discussion of any circumstance that is determinant in the establishment of the sanction. Consequently, in order to avoid advancement of criteria and to ensure the judge's impartiality also in this second stage, it must necessarily be held with all the accused persons, even if only one of them promoted it. Based on the foregoing, this Chamber observes that the errors pointed out by the technical and material defense do indeed concur, properly because the court conducted the trial continuously, despite the decree of the bifurcation (cesura) in the intermediate stage, without giving a hearing to all parties—who were only asked for their opinion regarding the petition raised by the technical defense of the person subject to justice [Name 001] to dispense with the testimonial evidence—and without the due reasoning being stated. However, it is verified that the alleged procedural defect is of a relative nature and was validated (convalidó) by the inaction of the participants in the trial. Note that the decision was not challenged by any of the parties, as they remained silent, which demonstrates tacit conformity with the court's decision. At this point, it is important to emphasize that the purpose of guaranteeing the accused person a technical defense is not merely formal; rather, it seeks to ensure that the designated or chosen defense attorney plays an active role during the proceeding, in protection of their client's interests. In this sense, it is not admissible that, with available procedural mechanisms to challenge a decision, inaction is chosen, and subsequently one seeks to obtain a benefit derived from that passivity. And the fact is that, according to Articles 442 and 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the court's decision to dispense with holding the second phase of the trial, the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) was procedurally appropriate; however, none of the parties, including the technical defense of [Name 030]—who now challenges—, filed it. Regarding the validation of procedural defects, Article 177, subsection b) provides: «Except in cases of absolute defects, defects shall be validated in the following cases: […] b) When those entitled to challenge it have accepted, expressly or tacitly, the effects of the act». That tacit acceptance was also evidenced during the closing arguments stage, when the Public Prosecutor's Office presented its claims, not only regarding the determination of the criminal liability of the accused persons, but also in relation to the imposition of the penalty. None of the defense attorneys formulated any objection in this regard, and all presented their final arguments without referencing a possible second phase of the trial. This Chamber does not share, in any way, the defense's argument, which—although it does not express it directly—appears to assert the existence of an absolute defect that would vitiate the entirety of the trial. The procedural guarantee that assists the accused person consists of having their criminal liability decided through a trial held in accordance with the principles of orality, immediacy, concentration, continuity (the last two will be discussed in depth in a separate consideration), contradiction, and publicity, all of which were observed in the present case.\n\nIn this framework, holding a bifurcated trial (juicio con cesura) constitutes an exception and not the rule, and therefore it cannot be considered an unavoidable procedural form, but rather applicable only when the party expresses its interest. To argue the contrary would imply assuming that trials conducted continuously violate the fundamental rights and procedural guarantees of the accused person, a conclusion that is legally untenable. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that procedural forms are not an end in themselves, but are directed at protecting the fundamental rights of the parties; hence the need to clearly identify the harm caused by their non-compliance. As Alberto Binder has pointed out, «The form and even the process itself are nothing more than instruments for the validity of rights and principles of defense of the human being that are guaranteed by the forms.» (El incumplimiento de las formas procesales: Elementos para una crítica a la teoría unitaria de las nulidades en el proceso penal, Buenos Aires: AD-HOC, 2000, p. 85). The defense did not identify a concrete and verifiable grievance derived from the court's decision to hold the trial continuously; instead, it merely argued, generically, that a second phase of the trial would have allowed a more extensive discussion on aspects linked to the imposition of the penalty. However, it did not specify what the effective limitations it faced as a consequence of the continuous development of the trial were, nor did it indicate what arguments or relevant elements were excluded from its presentation. It is clear then that the appealing party seeks the declaration of nullity for nullity's sake alone, regarding both the trial and the resulting judgment. In this regard, Binder adds that: «the declaration of nullity must be the final ratio in the defense of due process. As long as it is fulfilled, the forms remain subordinated to the principles because they are only guarantees of compliance with those principles […] the declaration of nullity always responds to a concrete interest and is nothing other than a response to a particular state of defenselessness or a vitiated act whose repair is impossible» (Ibid., p. 92. Underlining added). In this case, as indicated, we are facing a relative defect that was validated (se convalidó) by the lack of a timely claim by the parties to the process. Finally, and for greater abundance, it should be noted that, even in the event that some harm to the accused person had been verified —which did not occur in this matter—, a possible declaration of nullity would only have affected the determination of the penalty —whose discussion corresponded to the omitted second part of the trial—, and not the declaration of criminal liability typical of the first phase, which was carried out in an ordinary manner and in accordance with the provisions of the current criminal procedure. That is to say, under no circumstances was it appropriate to grant what was requested by the appealing party. As a corollary, although the concurrence of a defect in the procedure of the lower court (a quo) is verified, for having nullified the bifurcation unilaterally and without substantiating the decision, the defect was validated by the tacit consent of the parties. Furthermore, no grievance derived from that decision is verified, and therefore no declaration of nullity is appropriate. Based on the foregoing, the first grounds of the appeal filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva and the third ground of the defendant [Name 030] are declared without merit.\n\n**VII. Fourth ground of appeal managed by the private defender Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Name 001].** He alleges a violation of the principles of continuity and concentration. He transcribes the call for attention made by the court to the prosecutor in charge of the debate, where it warns him to indicate which communications were of interest to the case, as they did not intend to turn the trial into a wiretap hearing (audiencia de escuchas). He questions that, after the debate resumed, the prosecutor requested the reproduction of all 4030 communications, which turned the trial into a wiretap hearing, even when his client had expressly requested it during the investigation phase. He indicates that as technical defense counsel he opposed listening to all the communications, because he knew some were not of interest, but the court reproduced all of them. He details that, from the first day of the listening sessions, which occurred on July 23, 2024, to the last, which was October 8, 2024, 76 days elapsed and the testimonial evidence had concluded on July 8, 2024. He estimates that there was a violation of the principles of orality, immediacy, concentration, continuity, adversarial principle, and material truth, because from the time the reception of testimonial evidence concluded until the issuance of the judgment, almost four months elapsed, which he deems unreasonable and placed the defendants in a state of defenselessness, coupled with the fact that the principle of prompt and complete justice was violated. He asserts that what occurred could have affected the judges' ability to remember the witnesses' statements and determine the existence of contradictions, as well as circumstances necessary to establish their credibility. As a grievance, he states that the prolonged period invested in the listening sessions could have prejudicially influenced the issuance of a conviction against his client. He requests that the ground be upheld, the judgment be annulled, and a remand be ordered. Furthermore, he requests that the accused's release be ordered. **The ground is declared without merit.** The circumstance claimed is nothing more than a disagreement by the technical defense counsel with the direction of the debate by the trial court, but which in no way constitutes a defect susceptible to being declared in this instance. In matters processed within the Specialized Jurisdiction on Organized Crime, the maximum period of suspension of the debate is 20 days —which is deduced from articles 10 subsection d) of Law No. 9481 and 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code—. In the case before us, review of the records allows one to deduce that said period was not exceeded, as recorded by the trial court in the second operative part (resultando segundo) of the judgment, namely: «The debate was carried out as detailed: May 16, 2024 (both hearings were held), May 23, 2024 (first hearing was held), May 30, 2024 (both hearings were held), May 31, 2024 (second hearing was held), June 3, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 5, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 10, 2024 (first hearing was held), June 11, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 17, 2024 (second hearing was held), June 19, 2024 (second hearing was held), June 25, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 26, 2024 (first hearing was held), June 27, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 28, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 1, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 2, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 8, 2024 (first hearing was held), July 17, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 18, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 19, 2024 (first hearing was held), July 23, 2024 (second hearing was held), July 24, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 26, 2024 (first hearing was held), July 29, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 30, 2024 (first hearing was held), August 1, 2024 (first hearing was held), August 8, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 19, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 21, 2024 (first hearing was held), August 22, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 23, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 26, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 27, 2024 (first hearing was held), August 29, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 30, 2024 (first hearing was held), September 2, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 3, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 9, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 10, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 12, 2024 (first hearing was held), September 23, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 27, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 30, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 1, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 2, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 3, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 4, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 7, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 8, 2024 (second hearing was held), October 9, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 11, 2024 (first hearing was held), October 14, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 15, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 16, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 17, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 21, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 23, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 28, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 29, 2024 (both hearings were held), November 1, 2024 (both hearings were held), November 4, 2024 (both hearings were held), November 5, 2024 (both hearings were held), November 6, 2024 (both hearings were held) and November 7, 2024 (first hearing was held)» (cf. pp. 44 to 45 of the judgment). Now, specifically, the defense's disagreement focuses on the fact that, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), during the debate all telephone communications intercepted by order of the judge of the preparatory stage were reproduced, which caused 76 days to elapse from the time the reception of testimonial evidence concluded until other acts of the debate were carried out. In this regard, it must be pointed out that criminal proceedings are structured to advance in stages. Thus, the judge of the intermediate stage is responsible for, as one of the tasks assigned by law, the examination of the accusation (article 319 of the procedural code), which includes evaluating the relevance, necessity, and suitability of the evidence that supports it. The same analysis applies to the evidence offered by the other parties to the process. In that sense, article 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: «The court of the intermediate procedure shall admit the evidence relevant to the correct resolution of the case, and shall order ex officio that which proves essential. It shall reject that which it considers clearly abundant or unnecessary. It may ex officio order that evidence be received in the debate only when the negligence of any of the parties is manifest and its source resides in the actions already carried out. Against the decision rendered, only a motion for reconsideration is applicable, without prejudice to reiterating the request for receipt of inadmissible evidence, as evidence for better judgment (prueba para mejor resolver), before the trial court.» Consequently, it is at that stage that objections to the evidence offered by the other parties to the process should be formulated.\n\nOnce the judge of the intermediate stage admits the evidence to be presented at trial, the discussion on that point is precluded, and the trial court must act accordingly, by receiving the admitted evidence—which, it is worth noting, becomes common to all parties—as stated in Article 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code: \"Documents shall be read and displayed at the hearing, indicating their origin. Seized objects and other elements of conviction shall be exhibited for recognition by witnesses, experts, or the accused. Recordings and audiovisual evidence shall be reproduced [...]\". In the case at hand, the Public Prosecutor’s Office offered the entirety of the telephone interceptions captured in the investigation phase, together with their transcriptions, which were stored on a USB device, brand Kingston, Data Traveler 100, black, with a capacity of 128 GB, identified as 11-USB-CJIC-2021, and on a hard drive, brand SP, Armor A60, black with yellow, with a capacity of 2 TB, identified by Judicial Branch asset number 745179, as detailed in points 1 and 2 of the material evidence offer in the accusatory document (cf. reverse of page 4015 of the main file). For its part, the intermediate stage judge admitted the evidence in those same terms, stating: \"Material evidence. The accusation offers, and the following content is admitted: -A USB Device, brand Kingston, Data Traveler 100, black, with a capacity of 128 GB, identified as 11-USB-CJIC-2021 (To be provided to the Criminal Court). -A Hard Drive type Device, brand SP, Armor A60, black with yellow, with a capacity of 2 TB, identified by Judicial Branch asset number 745179. (To be provided to the Criminal Court)\" [sic] (cf. page 4138 of the main file). By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber finds no irregularity in the trial court’s action of reproducing the entirety of the content of the telephone interceptions, as it involved evidence admitted for that stage and there existed an interest by the party that offered it to proceed in that manner. The trial court had the possibility of consulting the parties as to whether they were interested in having the entirety of that evidence reproduced or only part of it, but it could in no way curtail the parties’ right to request its complete presentation, if they deemed it appropriate. What would have potentially constituted a defect was the court’s unjustified decision to omit the recordings requested by the prosecution. Now, the defense considers that the passage of 76 days between the conclusion of the testimonial evidence presentation and the conclusion of the playback of the telephone interceptions constitutes a violation of the principle of continuity. That position is by no means acceptable. Communications captured as a product of a telephone interception form part of the body of evidence with the same rank as testimonial, documentary, and expert evidence; consequently, the time invested in their reproduction during the trial cannot be understood as a suspension of the trial, but rather as what it truly is: a continuation of the evidence presentation phase. The defense seems to understand that testimonial evidence has preeminence over the remaining evidence, which is erroneous. Our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of proof, which does not establish per se a specific value to evidence based on its nature. The examination of evidence, governed by the rules of sound criticism, is what allows value to be assigned to each piece of evidence presented at trial, such that it is evidently an exercise carried out a posteriori, during deliberation. In this case, moreover, it has been possible to confirm that the content of the telephone interceptions was one of the determining elements for proving the prosecution's theory, and it is therefore not possible to consider it secondary or marginal compared to the testimonial evidence. Furthermore, the judicial investigators alluded in their testimonies to the content of the telephone interceptions, such that this is evidence that complements each other. By virtue of the above, having dismissed the defects alleged by the defense, the fourth ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales is declared without merit.\n\nVIII. Claims related to the first order for interception of telephone communications. First ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Name 001]. He claims \"Lack of intellectual reasoning. Erroneous assessment of the evidence in rejecting the first defective procedural act presented. The court omitted assessing what was challenged by the objection\". He recounts that, at trial, during closing arguments, he raised an objection for a defective procedural act against \"the act that occurred at the Judicial Branch interception center, when telephone numbers [Value 063] and [Value 064] of two individuals named [Name 161] and [Name 029] were connected to be intercepted\". He states that he objected to the act of intercepting said telephone rights, on the basis that it relied on a resolution that did not comply with a clear requirement, namely, that there be sufficient indicators that the person to be intercepted is carrying out an unlawful activity. He details that the first interception order was based solely on Judicial Investigation Agency Report IP-297-EN-18 of October 19, 2018, from which—in his view—it cannot be inferred that the persons to be intercepted were engaged in any criminal activity. He asserts that the interception of communications was ordered \"without any sufficient element of probability to believe that the two individuals were dedicated to any criminal activity\". He argues that the trial court did not analyze whether there were sufficient elements of conviction to order the telephone interception, but rather relied on the fact that the resolution contained the necessary reasoning. He points out that his arguments were not taken into account, and that the correct course was to determine whether there existed a sufficient probability of the commission of an unlawful act. He affirms that the preparatory stage judge did not verify the evidence on which the Public Prosecutor’s Office based its request, which consisted of a police report. He alleges that, according to the interception order, based on the report and two diagrams, it was concluded that his client led a criminal organization, but it was not assessed that the information dated from 2013. He argues that the diagrams contain simple associations, with assignments of functions, without reference to a particular activity and with dates far from the investigation. He argues that this information does not detail anything regarding [Name 161] and [Name 029], because they are not mentioned as collaborators of his client. He asserts that the judge who ordered the interception lied, because she did not analyze the evidence and simply accepted the information provided by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the application. He points out that, regarding ([Name 004]), the judge simply accepted that he was the person who paid two vehicle circulation fees for two vehicles and also handled their technical inspection. He states that these vehicles were not intercepted or stopped to determine if they carried any illicit object, nor was ([Name 004]) observed transporting drugs in them; instead, he was only seen transporting the children and other family members of his client. With regard to [Name 161], it was indicated that he paid the road tax for two vehicles that were believed to belong to the criminal organization, despite the fact that no illicit activity was observed involving them. Furthermore, it was mentioned that [Name 161] had been linked to a drug transport in 2011, but the outcome of that preliminary investigation is unknown. He adds that it was also considered relevant that the individual constantly visited the monitored residence, which is not indicative of an unlawful act, besides being false, because there is only evidence of a single visit, from which no police intervention resulted to verify if he was carrying anything illicit. He accuses that the judge relied on police conjectures and presumptions, not on evidence. He emphasizes that the majority of the data contained in the police report referred to [Name 001], not to the intercepted individuals. He summarizes the content of the police report, then criticizes the investigative work carried out by the judicial police, as well as the penal judge’s oversight, because in his opinion, \"one should not intercept to investigate\". He considers that an adequate analysis of the police report would have allowed verification that the intercepted individuals were not observed carrying out any activity related to drug trafficking or of any other type that would permit the interception of their communications. He argues that the prosecutorial application contains false information, because the alleged connections of the individuals to be intercepted with his client date back to the year 2013. He explains that the report contains false information about [Name 010], because it states that he did not have a permit to carry a weapon that was seized from him, despite the fact that the existence of said permit is detailed in the same report. He describes that, in the resolution, the judge affirmed that the individual did not have a carry permit, which demonstrates that she did not assess the evidence, because she asserted falsehoods. He warns that the material action carried out by the Judicial Center for the Interception of Communications is illegal, because an interception was ordered without probability of the commission of a criminal act and the constitutional right of [Name 029] and [Name 161] was arbitrarily violated. He considers that, due to the manner in which the judicial resolution was issued, it must be declared illegal. Based on a citation from jurist Gilbert Armijo, he emphasizes that a judicial resolution can be challenged via an objection for defective procedural act. He requests that the resolution of 07:50 hours on November 1, 2018, issued by the Penal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José in the present preliminary investigation, be declared ineffective, for lack of intellectual reasoning and for being ordered without meeting the requirements demanded by law, as regards the probability of participation in a criminal activity. Applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, he requests that the illegality of all the derived evidence be declared. He adds that in the order for lifting bank secrecy visible on page 3693, the judge did not carry out any type of reasoning regarding the probability of participation in a criminal act and limited herself to indicating that the examination of probability had been carried out in the telephone interception and search and seizure orders, and then, without more, detailed the communications on which she based her order. He states that on that judicial resolution the lower court also did not rule on what was requested of it. He analyzes that the access to information contained in the seized electronic devices is found within the same search and seizure order and is based on the results of the telephone interceptions. He argues that there is no alternative element of proof to support the original order for interception of communications. He stresses that the objection for defective procedural act was rejected by integrating a textual copy of the content of police report IP-297-EN-2018 into the judgment, without any assessment, merely paraphrasing its content. He points out that with the requested declaration of nullity, there is insufficient evidence remaining to support the criminal liability of his client, or of the other accused. Regarding the grievance, he details that his client was sentenced to 40 years in prison, without the defense's complaint being resolved. He requests that the first order for interception of communications, as well as the material act of capturing communications and all the derived evidence, be declared ineffective; furthermore, due to lack of resulting evidence, that his client be acquitted of all punishment and liability. In the alternative, he requests that the contested judgment be annulled and a new trial be ordered. First ground of the appeal filed by private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of [Name 029]. She claims \"Defect in reasoning and error in the assessment of the evidence\".\n\nHe alleges that the defective procedural activity (actividad procesal defectuosa) raised by the defense against the ruling of the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, which authorized the wiretapping (intervención telefónica) of [Nombre 161] and [Nombre 029], was rejected, despite the fact that the existence of sufficient indicia suggesting that those persons were involved in the commission of crimes was not proven, as required by Article 9 of Law No. 7425 of August 9, 1994. He indicates, in this regard, that the police report used as the basis for ordering the interception of communications did not meet the essential requirement of proving sufficient indicium. He argues that, by rejecting the objection for defective procedural activity, the trial court breached the provisions of Article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by not adequately addressing the allegation that the authorization for wiretapping was not properly grounded in the existence of criminal conduct. In relation to the same complaint, the appellant also pointed out that it was not demonstrated that the wiretaps were obtained in accordance with due process (cf. f. 7454 verso). She states that said omission, together with the erroneous assessment and weighing of the evidence, violates due process and led to her client's conviction of 24 years in prison. She adds that, had the defense's arguments been considered, the defective procedural activity would have been upheld, thereby acquitting her client. She requests that the manner in which the lower court weighed the evidence and substantiated the challenged point be assessed. As a consequence of the foregoing, she seeks a declaration of ineffectiveness of the ruling issued on November 1, 2018, by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, which first ordered the interception of communications. As a consequence of the above, she requests that the ineffectiveness and illegality of the ruling issued on November 1, 2018, by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, which first ordered the interception of communications, be declared. Upon declaring this first ruling ineffective and illegal, in application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, she believes the illegality of all the wiretaps must be decreed, given that the remaining wiretaps derive directly from the first wiretap. She believes that, upon the declaration of illegality of the wiretaps, the Public Prosecutor's Office would be left without evidentiary body, since only the initial anonymous complaint would remain, which pointed to [Nombre 001] and the subjects known by the alias “[Nombre 083]” as part of the criminal structure, as set forth in the judicial police report No. IP-297-EN-2018, of October 18, 2018. The appellant claims that said report did not mention ([Nombre 004]) or [Nombre 161] as being involved in the alleged criminal activity. In the event the acquittal is not granted, the appellant requests a remand for a new trial and the lifting of the precautionary measure of pretrial detention, since it was imposed on the occasion of the conviction (cf. f. 7457 verso). For the reasons that will be stated, the complaints are dismissed (drafted by Judge Renauld Castro). In the first place, it should be noted that what is objectively appealable in this venue is the judgment issued by the Specialized Criminal Court on Organized Crime, not the actions executed by the Judicial Branch’s Wiretap Center (Centro de Intervenciones Telefónicas), in compliance with the communications interception order issued in this matter by the jurisdictional authority of the preliminary stage. Said office acts by delegation of the judge who issues the judicial order, so its work is one of material execution, as derived from Article 14 of Law No. 8754, namely: “This unit shall carry out the interception of communications ordered by criminal judges throughout the country, when it is possible to use the available technology for that purpose.” The role of the judges of said Center is to ensure the legality of the interception procedure and the safeguarding of the fundamental rights of the investigated persons during that practice, so that, to legitimize their participation in the process, they verify that the request is preceded by the order issued by the competent authority that authorizes it. Under that premise, it is appropriate to resolve the claim regarding the validity of the limitation of the right to privacy of the co-accused ([Nombre 004]) and [Nombre 161], first ordered in the ruling issued by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at 7:50 a.m. on November 1, 2018 (cf. fs. 8 to 26 of volume I of the Interceptions File). By means of said ruling, the interception of the lines or services [Valor 077] and [Valor 063] was authorized, the use of which was associated with [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 161] respectively, for a time period of three months — from November 1, 2018 to February 1, 2019 —. This Chamber was able to verify that, contrary to what the appellant asserts, the debated issue was addressed by the Criminal Court between folios 51 and 68 of the appealed judgment — according to the judgment's own foliation —. It should be noted that during the oral hearing held in this venue on May 9, 2025, Attorney Mena Ayales stated that the sentencing court did not respond to the real challenge he raised as defective procedural activity, but rather limited itself to recounting the reasoning set out by the criminal judge to authorize the interception of communications. The defense attorney added that what was truly challenged before the trial judges was left unanswered, namely: that there were not sufficient indicia to make it probable that the defendants were carrying out criminal activity. After examining in detail the appealed ruling, this appellate court (tribunal de alzada) concludes that the specific point referred to by Attorneys Mena Ayales and Solórzano Hernández was indeed duly resolved. From a thorough examination of the judgment, it can be determined that beyond “transcribing” or summarizing the reasons for which the guarantees judge authorized the limitation of the right to privacy — which was necessary to provide content to the issue of proving indicia —, the trial court did justify why it considered that said jurisdictional decision was in accordance with the law. Among the elements considered by the court to establish the appropriateness of restricting the right to privacy for investigative purposes and specifically, the judgment of probability — not certainty — of participation in a criminal act by both defendants, which must be verified in the initial stages of the criminal process, are the following: 1) Confirmation of data provided through confidential reports: Given the fear and risk that normally arises in any person when appearing at a police station or a judicial office to file a complaint against possible participants in the crime of drug trafficking, it is common for the investigation of crimes of such nature to begin with the receipt of data, through the various anonymous reporting channels made available to citizens. It is clear that a confidential report does not constitute evidentiary material in itself, but rather a piece of news or a means of receiving data that can prompt the Public Prosecutor's Office or the police to conduct inquiries in order to corroborate or discard the information provided. The circumstantial elements – in this context – are those produced when the collected information can be linked to findings in reality, which are documented through photographs, videos, or police reports, among others.\n\nIn the case under review, anonymous information was received pointing to the existence of a criminal group dedicated to illegal drug trafficking, in which [Name 001], known as «[Name 084]», appeared as the alleged leader, along with [Name 029], alias «[Name 083]», and [Name 161], known as «[Name 083]», and which had as its main point of operations the sectors of León XIII, Calle Blancos, and Cinco Esquinas de Tibás (cf. pages 11 to 12 of volume I of the Interventions Docket and pages 55 to 56 of the contested judgment, according to its own pagination). The constant interaction among the three implicated individuals, as well as their movement in the geographic areas of interest to said investigated parties, especially [Name 004] and [Name 207], was corroborated through stationary surveillance, tailing (seguimientos), and vehicle registration verifications of the vehicles they drove, among other inquiries carried out between the months of April and October of 2018. As a result of the tailing (seguimientos), it was confirmed that both [Name 029] and [Name 161] performed different tasks indicative of their subordination to [Name 001]—driving him to places and waiting for him outside the site, watching over him during his movements, and even collaborating in procedures or payments corresponding to the vehicles used by said subject. Likewise, within the surveillance period, the constant movement of both between the residence of [Name 001] in Santo Domingo de Heredia and León XIII was evidenced, which was compatible with the *notitia criminis* received, in terms of the activity sites and the identity of the persons identified as involved in the illicit drug trade. **2) Tailing and surveillance:** In report IP-297EN-2018, the sectors of León XIII, Cinco Esquinas de Tibás, and [Name 056] were determined as the geographic points of greatest activity of the investigated parties. The first surveillance occurred on April 3, 2018, when [Name 001] was observed arriving at the Vilma Curling Institutional Care Center, aboard vehicle license plate [Value 065], which was driven by [Name 010] (cf. page 12 of volume I of the Interventions Docket and 57 of the judgment, according to its own pagination). On April 30, and May 2, 3, 4, and 17, 2018, the influx of different vehicles and persons mentioned in the information gathered by the judicial police was observed, including vehicles with license plates [Value 045], [Value 066], [Value 067], and [Value 068], at the points of interest in Santo Domingo de Heredia and León XIII (cf. page 13 of volume I of the Interventions Docket, police report visible on pages 33 to 42 of volume I principal, and the appealed judgment, specifically between pages 62-65 according to its own pagination). The interaction routes and the vehicles involved in said movements through various sectors of León XIII were also documented with the help of the incident logs of the police officers of the Ministry of Public Security, Tibás Delegation, specifically in official letter No. MSP-DM-DVURFP-DGFPSGFP-DRPSJ-SN-0736-2018 (cf. pages 14 and 45 of volume I of the Interventions Docket, pages 46 to 47 of volume I principal, and page 64 of the appealed judgment, according to its own numbering). The police information was validated by the judicial police officers who entered the points of interest in León XIII on May 17, 2018, in the early morning hours (cf. page 64 of the judgment, according to its own numbering, and pages 51 to 53 of volume I principal), concluding that said zone probably corresponds to the drug storage site (cf. pages 64 to 65 of the appealed judgment, according to its own pagination). The transit of vehicles in the areas of interest was not limited to observation during a single day, as the appellant claims, but rather the surveillance dates include the following: April 3, 18, 20, and 30, 2018, continuing into the month of May 2018. On April 30 and May 2, 3, 4, and 17, several vehicles of interest were sighted traveling from the residence of [Name 001] in Santo Domingo de Heredia or in front of it, towards the surveillance sectors in León XIII and Tibás. Although the appealed judgment generically indicates that this verification through police surveillance and tailing (seguimientos) was carried out between April and May 2018 (cf. page 64 of the appealed judgment, according to its own numbering), the same ruling details some of the observations made on specific days and the police report IP-297-EN-18, which was assessed by the *a quo* for the determination regarding the existence of a probability judgment of participation by [Name 207] and [Name 004] in a criminal organization led by [Name 001]. Said document contains the complete count of interactions detected on each of those dates, indicating the time at which each movement of interest was made, and even includes surveillance carried out later, between June and October 2018, as will be detailed further below. In that regard, on April 20, 2018, it was possible to accredit that [Name 029] left the same residence in the [Name 056] residential complex, which [Name 001] was observed entering after a prison visit made on the previous April 3, to take a pet for veterinary care. That same day, April 20, vehicle license plate [Value 045], which was used by [Name 161], was seen arriving at the residence in Santo Domingo de Heredia. Subsequently, between April 30 and May 4, 2018, the arrival of [Name 029] aboard the Hyundai vehicle license plate [Value 067] at the residence of interest in Santo Domingo de Heredia was documented. Between those dates, it was possible to observe vehicle license plate [Value 056], a minibus style, entering the [Name 056] residence and later also seen parked outside one of the residences identified as storage, in the Ciudadela León XIII (cf. pages 62 to 63 of the appealed judgment, according to its own pagination). The trial judges also assessed that the officers in charge of the surveillance observed [Name 004] leaving, on different occasions, a residence located in Tibás, 100 meters north and 50 meters east of the Public Force Delegation, which had been identified as the place of residence of [Name 001] in drug trafficking case no. 14-000056-1219-PE, previously opened against the latter (cf. pages 63 to 64 of the judgment, according to its own pagination, and report IP-297-EN18, specifically on page 44 of volume I principal). With the help of the administrative police, it was also documented that vehicles [Value 068] and [Value 045] were observed in the area known as \"Alameda Las Tenis\", in Garabito, León XIII, Tibás, during the night hours of May 18, 2018, a site identified as another of the activity points of the investigated subjects. On May 17, 2018, in that same sector, judicial police officers observed vehicles [Value 056], [Value 070], and truck license plate [Value 069], which linked the zone to points where drug distribution could be taking place, also known as \"bunkers\" (cf. pages 64 to 65 of the judgment, according to its own pagination, and pages 51 to 53 of volume I of the principal docket). Said movements were documented in photographs, added to police report IP-297-EN18, in which motorcycles and other vehicles are even observed acting as an escort for the motor vehicles of police interest presumed to be transporting the drugs (*ibid*). At this point it is important to note that the experience held by judicial investigators allows them to determine details, behaviors, and/or circumstances that are characteristic of criminal activities (counter-surveillance, escorts, among others) and that to the eyes of any other citizen may seem inconsequential; therefore, it is clearly a valid indication (indicio) to be assessed in requests such as the one challenged by the defense.\n\nOn June 29, 2018, the visit of [Name 001] to the Centro de Atención Institucional El Buen Pastor was documented; he arrived at that location at 8:12 a.m., aboard vehicle license plate [Value 071]. However, as of 7:54 a.m., the police observed that, in the vicinity of the prison, vehicle license plate [Value 068] was parked, driven by [Name 029] (cf. p. 66 of the appealed judgment, according to its own foliation). Likewise, motorcycle license plate [Value 072], which was observed during the transfers of [Name 001], is registered in the name of [Name 091], sister of [Name 029] (Ibidem). Furthermore, as part of the surveillance conducted between September and October 2018, information was obtained that made it possible to verify the entry of vehicles used by the investigated subjects into one of the residences that were identified by police as being of interest for the activities of the alleged organization. Specifically, it was analyzed that: “on October 18, 2018 […] an operation was carried out in the sector of Tibás, León Trece, with the objective of verifying again the control by the investigated persons of the property in the sector known as “[...], it was indicated that at the time of entry, investigators [Name 092] and [Name 093] observed vehicle license plate [Value 045] parked outside the property, and inside the property’s garage, vehicle license plate [Value 056], a vehicle that the investigators already linked to [Name 161] alias [Name 083]” (appealed judgment, pp. 66 to 67 according to its own foliation). 3) Coincidence of the residence linked to [Name 001] in a previous investigation, with the property where [Name 029] was seen entering and leaving during the initial surveillance: In report IP-297-EN-2018, it was emphasized that during a previous investigation for the crime of drug trafficking (case no. 14000056-1219-PE), brought against [Name 001], confidential information was received that placed him as the leader of the criminal group, also pointing out that his place of residence was: “[...]” (cf. p. 44 of main volume I and pp. 63 to 64 of the appealed judgment, according to its own numbering). This is the same house from which, coincidentally, the officers in charge of the surveillance in the preliminary investigation under review observed [Name 029] leaving on various occasions, to then head to the residence of [Name 001] in Santo Domingo de Heredia (ibid.). 4) Use of the tactic of changing vehicles to complete a route, as a security mechanism by the person identified as the leader of the criminal organization. During the surveillance operations on [Name 001], carried out on June 15 and 29, 2018, he was observed stopping at certain points along his route to change vehicles, which at the police level was classified as a usual security technique used among those who seek to avoid being detected by the police or by adversaries in the illicit business (cf. pp. 55 to 666 of main volume I and 65 to 66 of the appealed judgment, according to its own numbering). Added to this is that during the first police surveillance, carried out on April 3, 2018, the police highlighted in their report that, upon leaving the visit he was making at the prison, [Name 001] decided to take a taxi to return to his house in Santo Domingo de Heredia, despite the fact that [Name 010] was waiting for him parked outside the prison where he had been visiting, after observing that [Name 010] was being approached by the police (cf. pp. 12 of volume I of the Interventions Dossier and pp. 53 to 54 of the judgment, according to its own foliation). 5) Compilation of registry data, use, and maintenance of vehicles observed in the follow-ups and surveillance. In the various follow-ups and surveillance operations, the judicial and administrative police observed the arrival and departure of several vehicles from the residence of [Name 001], as well as their circulation in the points of interest in León XIII and Cinco Esquinas: Hyundai minibus style, license plate [Value 066]; Toyota Yaris gold color, license plate [Value 045]; Mitsubishi Montero wine color, license plate [Value 068]; and Hyundai Santa Fe gray color, license plate [Value 067]. It was also determined that [Name 029], alias “[Name 083]” was responsible for paying the circulation fee (derecho de circulación) for vehicle license plate [Value 056], for the year 2017, and for the automobile [Value 068] in 2017 and 2018. Furthermore, he took the latter vehicle for a vehicle technical inspection (revisión técnica vehicular) in 2017 and 2018. He was also observed driving vehicle license plate [Value 068]. On the other hand, it was verified that [Name 161], alias “[Name 083]”, paid the circulation fees (derechos de circulación) for vehicles license plate [Value 045] and [Value 073] for the year 2018 and took the latter for a vehicle inspection (revisión vehicular) in 2018; likewise, he was observed driving the first automobile (cf. police report IP-297-EN-18 at pp. 24 to 28 and 30 of main volume I and pp. 61 and 63 of the appealed ruling, according to its own foliation).\n\nRegarding these motor vehicles, it is important to note that they are the same ones observed by officers of the Organismo de Investigación Judicial in various surveillances and that, according to police experience, they had been detected in dynamics that were typical of the criminal activity under investigation. **6) Surveillance cameras installed as security devices at the residence of the person confidentially identified as the leader of the organization.** The judicial police documented through photographs (cfr. f. 5 of volume I of the main expediente) several cameras installed on the façade of the residence of [Nombre 001] (cfr. f. 53 of the appealed judgment, according to its own foliation). **7) Prior record for drug trafficking of the person identified as the leader of the investigated criminal organization.** [Nombre 001] held the status of accused in case no. 14-000056-1219-PE, prosecuted for drug trafficking (cfr. f. 30 of main volume I and fs. 59 and 63 of the appealed ruling, according to its own foliation). **8) Police linkage of the criminal structure:** Both the Dirección de Inteligencia Policial of the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, and the IBRIGE and IBASE databases, operationally link [Nombre 001], alias \"[Nombre 084]\", as a hierarchical figure within a criminal structure of which [Nombre 161] and [Nombre 029] would also form part, as trusted collaborators, also establishing links with [Nombre 096], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 050] (cfr. fs. 57 to 59 of the appealed ruling, according to its own foliation). **9) Seizure of a firearm during surveillance.** On April 3, 2018, during the first police surveillance carried out in this case, a firearm was seized from [Nombre 010]. Although the appellant disputes that it is false that [Nombre 010] did not have a permit to carry said weapon, the relevant piece of information that remained documented by the police officers who approached the Toyota Prado vehicle, license plate [Valor 070] on that date, is that he was carrying a firearm when he drove the leader of the criminal organization to the prison where the latter was heading for a prison visit (cfr. f. 12 of volume I of the Legajo de Intervenciones and f. 53 of the appealed judgment, according to its own foliation), since this fact supports the existence of an entire protection system for the leader of the organization, identified as [Nombre 001], by his subordinates. **Intellectual analysis of the circumstantial evidence examined by the trial court regarding the appropriateness of the limitations on the right to privacy for evidentiary purposes:** In accordance with the foregoing summary of circumstantial elements, it is clear that the decision to authorize the interception of communications from the lines associated with the numbers [Valor 077] and [Valor 063] was not made based on data originating from the year 2013, as the appellant claims, but rather derives from tailing and surveillance activities that began between March and April of 2018 and ended in October of the same year, that is, a few weeks before the issuance of the jurisdictional resolution authorizing the interference with the right to privacy that is being discussed here (November 1, 2018). Now, the challenge raised by the technical defense has as its starting point the complaint that in the case under review, the requirement to verify the existence of indicia of the commission of a crime was not met, as required by article 9 of Law No. 7425, entitled \"*Ley sobre registro, secuestro y examen de documentos privados e intervención de las comunicaciones*\", in accordance with the provisions of article 15 of Law No. 8754 \"*Ley contra la Delincuencia Organizada*\". In particular, the first of these norms states, in relevant part: \"[…] *the interception may only be authorized if there are sufficient indicia that a criminal activity is being carried out*\". Thus, what is required is a weighing of the existence of indicia that allow the prosecution's theory to be considered plausible, regarding the participation of the subjects who would be affected by the requested measure in a criminal act, and not a demonstration of certainty of participation in the illicit act, since the latter is required only for the issuance of a conviction. The Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia del Tercer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela has referred to this elementary distinction in resolution no. 2017-330, at 2:26 p.m. on May 12, 2017, a pronouncement which, for its clarity, is worth mentioning: \"*it must be emphasized that on numerous occasions, in the practice of the Courts, it is not considered that the degree of linkage required between the indicator fact and the unknown fact is not of the same nature or intensity if what is intended to be supported is a judgment on the criminal responsibility of a person or merely a judgment to enable the restriction of a fundamental right through the actions (police apprehension, vehicle search) under study. For the first scenario, the linkage of the indicator with a rule of experience must allow a conclusion about the existence and authorship of the crime to be deduced* with certainty *(beyond any reasonable doubt); while for the second scenario, it will suffice (since it is not legitimate to demand more than that in stages such as investigation, that is, before a judgment is issued at trial) that the linkage of the indicator with the rule of experience allows a deduction* with a reasonable degree of probability *that a crime is being committed […] these stages of analysis are constantly confused, thereby demanding a proven indication of guilt (which by definition can only be held with certainty, after a debate) where only an indication of a reasonable probability of the commission of a crime was required […] This distinction is essential, since if a judgment of certainty were required on those aspects at initial moments of the proceeding (such as the investigation stage), not only would the gradual nature with which \"the truth\" is constructed during the proceeding be ignored (that is, the verification or falsification of the hypotheses at play), but it would also hinder the possibility of carrying out or expanding an investigation, obtaining evidence, preventing the commission of crimes and impunity, which criminal procedural law and the corresponding organic law entrust to the judicial police. In short, without a doubt, the indicator facts must be duly and lawfully demonstrated both to authorize the police apprehension of a subject, as well as to legitimize the search of the interior of a motor vehicle, but it is erroneous to claim - as the lower court did - that at the time these police actions are carried out, an inference with a degree of certainty about the existence and authorship of a specific illicit act is already required*\" [sic] (emphasis supplied). Although the preceding ruling alludes to the impact on the right to the private sphere of individuals, derived from conducting a checkpoint and vehicle search, the reasons outlined therein are fully applicable to other types of restrictions on the same fundamental right for investigative purposes, such as when requesting the interception of communications. Factors such as the type of investigation at hand, the procedural phase in which the matter is found, the exhaustion of less harmful means to continue the inquiries, and the degree of impact on the fundamental rights involved must be taken into account to establish what degree of circumstantial linkage with the commission of the act should be required and how reasonable the restriction would be that would be produced through the evidentiary technique. In any case, it must be clear that, while to issue a conviction a judgment of certainty about the guilt of the accused in the acts attributed to them must be reached, the existence of \"sufficient indicia\" is enough to authorize telephone interception.\n\nIn that sense, this Chamber adopts the criterion expressed by the Court of Appeals of Judgment of Cartago, in resolution No. 2017-00262, of 13:52 hours on May 26, 2017, in which it indicated: «[…] it must be pointed out that neither the Political Constitution nor Law No. 7425 make any reference to the concept of probability referred to by the appellant, but rather it is the aforementioned law that refers to the terminology of \"sufficient evidence (indicios suficientes)\", which denotes a state of knowledge distinct from that of probability, because it is situated in the realm of suspicion, which terminologically means: \"To consider someone as a possible perpetrator of a crime or an offense\" (Real Academia Española, 2017). It is important to mention that the legislation indicates that this suspicion must be sufficient, so the simple imagination of police bodies would not be enough, but rather there must be evidence that reasonably allows inferring the possibility of the commission of one of the crimes established in the law». Regarding the infringement of fundamental rights during the investigation phase, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had ruled in a similar sense in resolution No. 2006-00712, of 10:45 hours on August 7, 2006: «[...] the raid (allanamiento) is based on a presumptive criterion and has the purpose of searching the site and seizing objects of utility for the investigation –which may or may not occur– it will be duly documented in the minutes prepared for that purpose. In this regard, this Chamber has pointed out how in the investigative phase: “… suspicions are handled regarding the possible participation of certain persons in a specific criminal act, in reality there is no concrete charge to attribute –an indispensable requirement of any accusation (imputación), even if informal– […] And the existence of founded suspicions is the essential element that the judge must weigh when authorizing a proceeding of this nature, because it will involve the infringement of a fundamental right that only proceeds in exceptional cases, in harmony with the provisions of Articles 23 and 28, second paragraph, of the Political Constitution.” (Third Chamber, # 468-99, of 9:20 hours on April 23, 1999)». Therefore, private defense counsel Mena Ayales is not correct, who alleged in his appeal that «one should not intervene to investigate», because precisely the intervention of telephone communications constitutes an exceptional investigative tool, provided by the legislator for the clarification of especially serious acts. If it were required to have a degree of probability so high that it subsequently serves as the basis for a declaration of criminal liability by certainty —as the appellant seems to maintain—, the interception (interceptación) of communications would not only be unnecessary, but also improper, because when there is a body of evidence suitable to prove the commission of an unlawful act beyond all reasonable doubt, the investigative proceedings that affect fundamental rights lose their justification and become improper. Furthermore, in practice, it would be entirely unnecessary to carry out an intervention under those conditions. Under the framework of these considerations, the joint analysis of the evidence that was assessed by the criminal judge of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, prior to authorizing the intervention of communications, passes the test of verifying the existence of a judgment of sufficient evidence regarding the intervention of [Name 161] and ([Name 004]) in the activity of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs. Moreover, in his appeal claim, the technical defense disputes the viability of the evidence to prove the existence of a judgment of probability of the commission of illicit activity by both accused persons (sindicados), but to do so it takes as its starting point the individual assessment of said evidence. Such a position is erroneous and, as already indicated, it is their joint consideration that allows determining that the judicial authorization is in accordance with the Law. The comprehensive analysis of the evidence existing at the time the request was made allowed establishing that the intervention of communications was a reasonable and proportional limitation of the co-defendants' right to privacy, in order to determine the roles fulfilled by them in the illicit enterprise. Although it is true that, when resolving the defective procedural activity that was raised regarding the extreme under discussion, the a quo repeatedly referred to the content of report IP-297-EN18, this is because it contains the detail of the investigative activity and the police inferences that motivated the Prosecutor's Office (Fiscalía) to raise the initial request for telephone intervention. However, the references of interest were also accompanied by the conclusions that the trial judges derive from said material. Upon declaring without merit the defective procedural activity that questioned the legality of the interception of communications ordered by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at 7:50 hours on November 1, 2018, the objections related to the evidence derived from it also fall, in application of the fruit of the poisonous tree theory, as put forward by Attorneys Mena and Solórzano. It is not omitted to indicate that defense counsel Mena Ayales affirmed in his appeal that the order to access private information was contained within the resolution that ordered the raid proceeding (allanamiento) in this case, which was based on the communications generated as a product of the intervention order, therefore it is understood that it also requires a declaration of illegality. However, this Chamber finds no irregularity in the actions of the guarantees judge that must be declared. The raid order contains the corresponding evidentiary analysis for each of the investigated persons regarding their probable participation in criminal activities of drug trafficking and/or money laundering (legitimación de capitales). In that understanding, the order to access private information is based on the same intellective foundation and, in light of the evidence that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) intended to seize, it was suitable, necessary, and proportional, in order to obtain elements of proof that would allow the clarification of the facts. By virtue of the foregoing, a declaration of any irregularity in relation to said judicial pronouncement is not appropriate. Regarding the lack of reasoning of the seizure order for private information, questioned by Attorney Mena Ayales: Finally, the technical defense points out that the authorization for seizure and analysis of private information issued by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, by resolution of 10:00 hours on May 10, 2021 (pages 3693 to 3707 of volume VIII of the main judicial file (expediente)), lacks proper reasoning. After examining said pronouncement in detail, the opposite is concluded. The first paragraph of Article 18 of the Law against Organized Crime provides: «In every investigation for organized crime, the lifting of bank secrecy (secreto bancario) of the accused persons or of the natural or legal persons linked to the investigation shall proceed. The order shall be issued by the judge, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office». In particular, from page 3697 verso to page 3704 recto, the judge analyzes the existence of evidence of participation of those charged in the crimes under investigation —drug trafficking, aggravated homicide, and money laundering—.\n\nIn addition to referring to the analysis of evidence it had in the authorizations for communication interceptions (intervención de comunicaciones) and the search warrant (orden de allanamiento) previously issued, the jurisdictional authority conducted a recount of the consecutive telephone calls containing information of interest to link, to a degree of probability, [Nombre 001], [Nombre 161], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 022], ([Nombre 013]), [Nombre 007], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 050], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 046] and [Nombre 019], with the criminal activities under investigation (cfr. fs. 3699 front to 3700 back). The judge of guarantees (juez de garantías) indicated that, since money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was one of the conducts of interest, access to private information that would allow clarity regarding the flow of income and financial movements, expenses, businesses, employment status, tax or customs activity, registered or transferred assets, or even the value of insured assets, was pertinent and relevant, besides being the only legal means for obtaining it. In those terms, he stated that the private documentation to which the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) requested access would allow determining the economic level of the suspect individuals and those in whose name various assets of interest in the criminal summary proceedings (sumaria penal) appear. He explained that it is common in criminal organizations dedicated to the illicit trafficking of narcotics to use different means to conceal the illicit origin of the high-value assets to which they have access, as a product of the criminal enterprise. Adding to this, in the specific case, it was known that the person identified as the leader of the organization had control over different real estate located in the Valle Central and other assets of high economic value, which were not consistent with any commercial activity or licit income on his part. In particular, the dwelling of [Nombre 001], located in León XIII, stood out for its size and characteristics, which strengthened the prosecutorial thesis regarding his hierarchical position in the criminal group dedicated to obtaining profit through drug dealing. The judge placed special emphasis on the fact that the group executed security operations on different occasions to evade police control, used coded language, that its members made changes to telephone lines, and that the assets were enjoyed or possessed by people other than those in whose name they were held, all aspects that supported the proportionality, reasonableness, and necessity of the seizure (secuestro) of private information that would allow clarifying the origin of the detected asset increase and its possible link to the illegal drug trade (cfr. f. 3698 front and back). In this regard, the judge referred to specific instances such as, for example, that in the name of [Nombre 097], brother of [Nombre 029], the BMW vehicle with license plate [Valor 074] was registered, despite not being a salaried employee (cfr. fs. 3701 back to 3702 front). Likewise, the ruling analyzed that the dwelling in Residencial [Nombre 056], Santo Domingo de Heredia, whose ownership is police-linked to [Nombre 001], is in the name of his mother-in-law, who reports only an old-age pension as income (f. 3702 front). It is thus that the evidentiary analysis (análisis indiciario) conducted by the judge, in light of the state of progress of the investigation and the crimes whose clarification motivated the prosecutorial request, allows determining that the authorization for the seizure of private information challenged by the technical defense (defensa técnica) meets the legality parameters that must be observed in a limitation of fundamental rights of this type. In conclusion, this Chamber concludes that both the authorization for the interception of communications ordered by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José (Juzgado Penal del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José), at 7:53 a.m. on November 1, 2018, and the order for the seizure and analysis of private information issued by that same authority, by resolution at 10:00 a.m. on May 10, 2021, were issued in accordance with the law. Under such perspective, the declaration without merit of the defective procedural acts (actividades procesales defectuosas) filed by the technical defense against said authorizations must be upheld. Consequently, the first ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by defender Mena Ayales is declared without merit (sin lugar), as well as the first ground of the challenge (impugnación) filed by attorney Solórzano Hernández, representing [Nombre 029].\n\nIX. Second claim of the appeal of sentence (recurso de apelación de sentencia) filed by private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández representing [Nombre 029]. She alleges \"Violation of the principles of defense, statement of reasons (fundamentación), accusation (imputación), and due process.\" The Master Solórzano Hernández states that in this matter, the prosecutorial request (requerimiento fiscal) falls short of the requirement for a precise and detailed account of the factual framework (marco fáctico) being accused. She indicates that, to comply with the foregoing, the conditions of manner, time, and place in which the events occurred must necessarily be indicated, which does not constitute merely a procedural formality but, beyond that, enables an effective exercise of the defense. She argues that \"if the accusation is limited to a mere enumeration of evidence or an imprecise description, the right to defense would be violated, as the necessary information to contradict the charges would not be provided. If the accusation is limited to a mere enumeration of evidence or an imprecise description, the right to defense would be violated, as the necessary information to contradict the charges would not be provided\" (f. 7459 back). She considers that, in this matter, the breach of said duty prevented her client from adequately preparing his defense strategy.\n\nIt indicates, in this regard, that in points 4.1 to 4.5 of the accusatory factual framework, actions supposedly carried out by the co-defendants [Name 029] and [Name 026] are described in an absolutely vague and generic manner, without specifying where, how, and when the \"designation\" of ([Name 004]) to fulfill a role within the alleged criminal group occurred. Regarding the transportation of drugs, it laments the failure to specify when said action occurred, what type of drug and specific quantity was transported. It argues that, for example, the quantity transported would make it possible to distinguish between a transfer for personal use and an illicit one. It adds that \"the lack of reference to the seizure of the drug and the description of the material circumstances related to the punishable act prevents the defense from accessing the evidentiary elements necessary to refute or contrast the accusation\" (f. 7461 fte.). As an additional grievance, it points out that the correct application of procedural law (Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; numeral 41 of the Political Constitution, as well as articles 142, 184, 303, and 365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal)), would have led to an acquittal as a consequence of the ineffectiveness of the accusation. **The ground is dismissed**. To respond to the complaint, it is necessary to outline the facts accused and subsequently held as proven in the judgment, which relate to [Name 029]: \"*1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the town of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: • The storage and dosage of the drug stashes acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of the stashes to the various points of sale. • The sale of drug stashes owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory.*\"\n\n• The marketing of drug caches belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug-dependent individuals, through the properties held by the organization for \"Bunker\"-type purposes, as well as on public roads in the areas under the organization's control. • The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking to employ various means for that purpose. 3.- This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction: the marketing of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: [...] • [Nombre 029]: member of the criminal group; he figured as one of the leader's trusted persons; his duties included, among other functions, coordinating and executing all actions aimed at the security and protection of [Nombre 001] and his family nucleus; in addition, under the direction and supervision of the leader, he personally carried out the deliveries of drug caches that the organization marketed to other criminal structures; he was also responsible, in association with his romantic partner, the accused [Nombre 026], for the collection and safeguarding of the money derived from the illicit activity carried out by the narco structure; moreover, he was one of the members of the group designated to recruit third parties outside the organization for the purpose of having them facilitate their accounts at various financial entities in order to move through them the money derived from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the organization [...]. 4.1 As part of the operational model employed by the Criminal Organization, the accused [Nombre 001] designated the accused [Nombre 029] to carry out deliveries of narcotics to other criminal organizations rooted in the Central Valley, for which they used a Mitsubishi brand, Montero style vehicle, license plate number [Valor 075], which had compartments specially designed for the transport of narcotic caches; likewise, the administration of the money derived from drug trafficking was delegated to the accused [Nombre 026] and ([Nombre 004]). 4.2 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029] regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 6, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the dwelling located at [...], an amount of approximately 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.3 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029] regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 21, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the dwelling located at [...], an amount of approximately 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.4 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029] regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 31, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the dwelling located at [...], an amount of approximately 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.5 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, in the period of 2018 until the month of October 2020, the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029] were in charge of the recruitment function of third persons, who were responsible for making deposits of money derived from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as performing the functions of currency exchange and purchase, with the purpose of incorporating the money derived from drug trafficking into the national banking system. 4.6 In the span from April 2018 until the month of April 2019, the criminal organization led by the accused [Nombre 001] sold, marketed, and supplied unauthorized drugs to the criminal organization led by [Nombre 099] (Imprisoned in Nicaragua), which was operationally directed on Costa Rican soil by the person identified as [Nombre 137]. 4.7 The methodology used by both criminal organizations consisted of [Nombre 001] designating the accused [Nombre 029] to transport narcotic caches, using the Mitsubishi brand, Montero style vehicle, license plate number [Valor 075], periodically, from the properties designated for drug storage by this criminal group, in the center of criminal operations in the León XIII housing project, drugs that were marketed with the organization directed by [Nombre 137], to the property located at [...], black gate on the right side, a site where the person identified as [Nombre 101] (member of [Nombre 137]'s Organization) stored and guarded the narcotics, which the criminal group subsequently processed, dosed, and marketed at the different drug sale points where this criminal group was rooted in the Central Valley.\n\n4.8 This methodology for the commercialization of drugs continued during the period of the month of April 2018 and until April 3, 2019, the date on which operational tasks were carried out by the Drug Enforcement Section (Sección de Estupefacientes) of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), in which the arrest of 21 persons was achieved, in addition to the operational leader of the criminal group [Name 137], as well as the seizure of 12.28 grams of Cannabis Sativa shredded plant material, one plastic wrapper containing 0.30 grams of Ketamine powder solid, one plastic wrapper containing 0.48 grams of Ketamine, one transparent plastic wrapper containing 1.23 grams of Ketamine powder solid, one plastic wrapper containing inside it 0.11 grams of cocaine hydrochloride, and 1437 plastic wrappers, of which at least 1078 contain an estimated net [Name 153] of 79.8 grams of cocaine hydrochloride fragments, drugs that were destined for illegal commercialization at the drug sales points controlled by the organization of [Name 137]. (Facts Investigated in case 18-000017-1219-PE) [...]\n\n4.33 In the period between May 3 and 17, 2019, the criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001], in accordance with the operational model for the commercialization of drugs, designated the accused [Name 029] to carry out the transfer of shipments of narcotics from the criminal group's operations center in [...], which was used by the persons identified as [Name 102], [Name 107], [Name 104], and [Name 105], for the storage, dosing, and distribution of unauthorized drugs. 4.34 On May 16, 2019, at 00:20 hours, the accused [Name 029], following the instructions given by the hierarchy of the criminal group and adhering to the operational model used for drug trafficking and trade, transferred a shipment of narcotics from San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, Alameda las Tennis, using the vehicle make Mitsubishi, style Montero, license plate [Value 075], to the property located in [...], a place where the accused ([Name 004]) entered for a few minutes and subsequently withdrew. 4.35 On May sixteenth, two thousand nineteen, at 18:51 hours, in [...], the defendants [Name 106], [Name 107], and [Name 108] stored, prepared, processed, and possessed for unauthorized use with intent to sell, specifically, cocaine hydrochloride and crack cocaine base. 4.36 Thus, that same day, May sixteenth, two thousand nineteen, at around 18:51 hours, the defendant [Name 105] appeared at the residence under investigation where the narcotics supplied by ([Name 004]) were stored, aboard the vehicle make Toyota, RAV-4, black color, metal plates [Value 076], from which he descended and was handed by the defendant ([Name 107]) a bag containing two thousand five hundred twenty-one plastic wrappers with cocaine fragments and two plastic wrappers with a total of 200.27 grams of powder solid with cocaine, who then proceeded to leave the site, at which moment he was approached by officers of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), who carried out his arrest and the seizure of the drugs he was transporting.\n\n4.37 By reason of the foregoing, on May seventeenth, two thousand nineteen, at 09:40 hours, a raid (allanamiento) was carried out at the dwelling where the accused [Name 029] delivered narcotics, a location where the following were found: utensils typical of the commercialization, processing, and preparation of psychotropic substances, such as; a black and silver digital scale, plastic wrappers, sodium bicarbonate, razor blades, as well as the seizure of fifty plastic wrappers with fragments containing cocaine, a bag with residue of fragments containing cocaine, and two wrappers with 2004.16 grams of a solid compact substance containing cocaine, a drug that was stored and intended to be commercialized with third parties, and which was supplied by the criminal organization led by [Name 001]; likewise, the seizure of one million four hundred eighty thousand seventy-five colones (1,480,075.00) was achieved, cash in small denominations, proceeds from drug trafficking activity, and the arrest of [Name 106], [Name 107] and [Name 108] (Facts investigated in preliminary proceedings 19-014179-0042-PE) [...]\n\n5.- During the investigation period between the months of April 2018 and until the month of October 2020, the Criminal Organization comprised of the investigated parties [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016] and [Name 019], as a consequence of the significant illicit profits produced from the serious activity of trafficking and selling narcotics, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001] [...]\n\n6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, raid, search, and seizure (allanamiento, registro y secuestro) proceedings were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts and which is set forth below [...]\n\n6.8 Regarding the result of the raid, search, and seizure proceedings, carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], the following result was obtained and corresponds to objects acquired with money proceeds from drug trafficking: • A black and pink notebook with the legend Femme, with the brand on the upper right edge \"El líder\" with a total of (98) pages with notes of various accounts. • A gray cell phone brand Huawei, model Huawei MLA-L02, without visible IMEI. • A black cell phone brand Nokia with IMEI number 352905101877359, with a SIM card, brand Movistar with the numbering 8950604001911308753F. • A total amount of cash of ¢323,000.00 colones Three Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand Colones, money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused.\n\n• A receipt of money to third parties from the Ministry of Justice and Peace, CAI Vilma Curling Rivera where [Name 029] receives, with an adhesive sheet bearing the name of [Name 155]. • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, pink color IMEI 355734070780270 with a SIM card with no visible brand with the number 8950604302807581416; additionally, a Samsung brand cell phone, black color, was collected with IMEI 355286105100636, IMEI #2 355286105100644, with a Movistar SIM card with the number 8950604001907110389F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand 4GB. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black color, IMEI 866368040451035 with a Claro SIM card with the number 3950603018885857562F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand 4GB» (cfr. fs. 276 to 313 of the judgment). From the analysis of the preceding passage, this Court considers that the defense is incorrect and that the imputation of charges attributed to [Name 029] is consistent with the requirements of numeral 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), in that it clearly, precisely, and circumstantially describes the typical actions of the crimes of drug trafficking in its aggravated form and money laundering (legitimación de capitales). The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), with respect to the principle of imputation (principio de imputación), stated in resolution No. 2021-1459, at 10:27 a.m. on December 9, 2021, the following: «V. [...] Pursuant to what has been described, the requirements of the accusatory instrument are set forth in ordinal 303 of the Procedural Code, which stipulates: “Accusation and request for trial opening. When the Public Ministry considers that the investigation provides grounds to subject the accused to a public trial, it shall submit the accusation requesting the trial opening. The accusation shall contain: a) The data serving to identify the accused. b) The precise and circumstantial account of the punishable act attributed. c) The grounds for the accusation, with the statement of the elements of conviction that motivate it. d) The citation of applicable legal precepts. e) The offer of evidence to be presented at trial. With the accusation, the Public Ministry shall forward to the judge the proceedings and the evidence in its possession that may be incorporated into the debate.” Consequently, the aforementioned subsection a) of that normative precept has a significant connection with the right of defense and the principle of imputation (principio de imputación), since, taking as a starting point the factual circumstances attributed in the prosecutorial reproach, the accused will have the power to materialize his material and technical defense; however, the requirement regarding the determination of temporal, modal, and spatial situations will depend on the type of offense charged against the defendant and on the particularities of the case. That is, the balance with the right of defense is not disputed, it being essential that the accused party be able to understand the conduct reproached to him in order to refute it [...] A topic analyzed repeatedly by the Chamber, detailing the need to assess each particular matter with the purpose of specifying whether or not the requirement of a specific temporal determination is mandatory. In that sense, the jurisprudence has held: “...The precision of the imputed facts must be measured not only by the variable of time, but by virtue of the other conditions of space and mode, as well as other individualizing details of the event, that can be derived from the investigation. (...) It is not possible to set general limits or rules regarding the duration of the acceptable temporal period for delimiting facts, applicable to all cases of crimes\n\nExpediente No. 18-000104-1219-PE – Voto No. 2025-0039\n_________________________________________________________________________________________________\nI Circuito Judicial de San José, San José, Edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Tercer Piso. Teléfonos: 2211-5349, 2211-5350\no 2211-5351. Correo electrónico: sjo-tpenalapela-jedo@Poder-Judicial.go.cr\nPág. 1\n\nof a sexual nature in which minors or incapacitated persons figure as aggrieved. The cognitive maturity characteristics of the affected person, the nature of the facts, their age, and the periodic or repetitive character that the accused actions may have must all be considered.” (Third Chamber, ruling No. 2015-862, at 9:29 a.m. on June 26, 2015. Panel of Magistrates Chinchilla Sandí, Ramírez Quirós, Arias Madrigal, Cortés Coto and Zúñiga Morales) [...]». Despite the fact that the previous excerpt alludes to accusations for periods of time carried out in matters where minors figure as the aggrieved party, the stated criterion is applicable to any type of criminal activity, inasmuch as it will be the particularities of each case that determine the effective possibilities of concreteness in the imputation of charges, and based on these it can be corroborated whether the adequate exercise of the right of defense by the accused person is feasible. However, in the case at hand, the picture is quite clear, since the accusation made by the Public Ministry allows understanding with complete clarity the actions attributed to [Name 029]. Note that in facts 1 and 2, as a preamble, the existence of a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking and its mode of operation is described, of which [Name 029] was a part. In the third fact, the functions that said accused carried out within the criminal organization are described, and these are coincident with the actions explained in the following points. It is important to highlight that these initial facts highlight spatial and temporal circumstances that frame the rest of the factual description, since it is indicated that the criminal organization operated at least between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, in various localities of the Central Valley (Valle Central). Now, starting from fact 4.1, the specific actions imputed to [Name 029] are described in detail, which consisted, basically, in the delivery of drugs to other criminal organizations, by express delegation from [Name 001], as well as the administration of the money obtained as payment, its deposit into accounts of members of the organization, and the conversion of the capital into foreign currency through third parties. Regarding the drug trafficking, facts 4.6 and 4.7 detail that the criminal structure of which the defendant was a part sold, commercialized, and supplied drugs to another criminal organization, led by a subject identified as [Name 099]. It is clearly indicated that the person in charge of transporting that trafficked drug was [Name 029], an activity he carried out in the Mitsubishi vehicle, Montero model, license plate [Value 068]. Here it is established that the transports were carried out from Ciudadela León XIII in Tibás to the locality of Desamparados. Although the previous subsections did not detail what type of drug was trafficked, point 4.8 clarifies that circumstance, by describing the class and quantities of drugs confiscated from the recipient criminal organization. Then, in facts 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36 and 4.37, reference is made to the supply of drugs to another criminal organization, which is temporally framed from May 3 to 17, 2019. Once again, it is highlighted that the defendant [Name 029] was the member of the criminal organization whose task it was to carry out the transport of the drugs from Ciudadela León XIII in Tibás, to Aserrí, in the vicinity of the cemetery. It is explained that for these purposes, the justiciable used the vehicle with plate [Value 068] —the same mentioned previously— and it is clarified that one of these transport actions was allegedly carried out on May 16, 2019. The recipients of the drug are identified and the type of trafficked substance is then specified, namely cocaine. Then, fact 5, in a general manner, likewise refers that the criminal organization of which the justiciable was a part, in the period from April 2018 to October 2020, carried out actions to acquire, convert, and transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets, knowing that they were acquired as a product of the criminal activity of drug trafficking. Points 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 describe clearly that the accused ([Name 004]), together with his wife, had under their custody in their home, money obtained as a product of the criminal activity. In each of the events, the date and the specific amounts are indicated. Then, in point 4.5, to complete the imputation, it is outlined that the accused and his wife recruited third parties for the purpose of making money deposits, as well as currency exchange, for the subsequent incorporation of that illicit capital into the national banking system. Finally, in fact 5, it is described that the accused carried out actions aimed at acquiring, converting, transmitting assets of economic interest, as well as concealing the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over different assets or their ownership, which must be read in conjunction with facts 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, where the composition of those actions is specified. From all of the foregoing, it is possible to derive that the imputation made to the defendant ([Name 004]) consisted in that, between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, he formed part of a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking and that the actions he carried out within it consisted of the material action of transporting the drug for its delivery to other criminal organizations, as well as the administration of the money obtained as payment, which was converted into foreign currency through the use of third parties, such that the defense's assertion is untrue, in the sense that the accusation prevented the accused from understanding the facts attributed and, based on that knowledge, from developing his defense strategy. While it is true that it is common, in accusations related to drug trafficking, for the factual account to include descriptions that are descriptive of investigation acts, as in this case the detail of the raids carried out and the confiscations derived from them, with respect to the justiciable, these points do not constitute the core of the imputation, but rather clarify certain circumstances, such as the type of drug that was trafficked and the quantities. Therefore, the defense's assessment is incorrect, when it asserts that the factual description did not contain that information. The appellant seems to understand that the fact that no specific date is included when the defendant [Name 001] recruited and designated [Name 029] to carry out the actions related to the management and administration of the illicit capital constitutes a defect in the imputation. However, said aspect does not have the weight that one attempts to assign it. The correct imputation of the facts does not imply millimetric precision regarding the time and date on which each of the aspects surrounding the event of interest occurred.\n\nRather, it implies a description that includes sufficient parameters of mode, time, and space so that, in light of the elements of interest for the criminal type or types in question, it is possible for the accused person to effectively exercise their right to defense. In the present case, the actions that conform to the typical description of numeral 69 of Law No. 8204 do contain information on time, place, and mode, which, as indicated, consisted of the initial custody of the money in the accused's home and the use of third parties to carry out the conversion of that money into foreign currency. Likewise, in relation to drug trafficking, the actions deployed by the accused are clearly described and consisted basically of the transfer of the drug that was being trafficked by the organization for delivery to other criminal structures. The fact that the specific amount supplied on each occasion is not indicated is not an indispensable requirement, since the truth is that the charge does allow an understanding that it was drugs intended for other organizations to traffic with third parties, from which the possibility that its purpose was the accused's personal consumption is discarded, an aspect that is likewise clarified with the details of the seizures made by the judicial police. Regarding the identity of the drug, as already indicated, it is clarified from the charge itself, when reference is made to the incautations carried out through the operational actions executed by the Organismo de Investigación Judicial, which demonstrate that they involved illicit substances, of those described in Article 1 of Law No. 8204. Based on the considerations set forth, this Chamber concludes that the prosecutorial accusation offered sufficient information for the defendant [Name 029] to understand the actions constituting drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) attributed to him and that, based on that knowledge, he could develop his technical and material defense strategy. By virtue of the foregoing, the alleged defect is dismissed and what proceeds is to declare without merit the first ground of appeal formulated by the technical defense. \n\n**X. Second ground of the appeal against the judgment filed personally by [Name 029].** He alleges \"*Lack of intellectual evidentiary reasoning regarding the statement given in debate by the appellant*\". He states that his deposition given verbally at trial (see folio 103 of the ruling), \"*offers details of my work activity that justify the facts of which I am accused, being a driver for a person, taking vehicles from various clients to Riteve and serving as a mechanic for different people*\" (folio 7348 verso). He alleges that, in the provision of his services, the law did not oblige him to know who the people contracting him were. However, international instruments —in particular the Inter-American Court of Human Rights— oblige judges to weigh his statement in light of the accused facts and the remaining evidence offered by the parties. The grievance consists, according to the material defense, in the issuance of a conviction without taking into account the statement of the co-defendant ([Name 004]), as a source of evidence. Based on the foregoing, he requests that the contested judgment be annulled and the matter be remanded for a new trial. **Third claim corresponding to the appeal against the judgment filed by the co-defendant [Name 029].** He accuses \"*Disagreement with the determination of the facts*\". The appellant sets out the facts proven against him, which correspond to points 4 to 4.5 and 5 of the accusatory pleading. He indicates that, based on the same factual framework that accuses him of recruiting people to make deposits into bank accounts, he is sanctioned for two different crimes: drug trafficking and money laundering. He considers that it violates constitutional numeral 42 and numeral 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), that he be convicted of two different crimes based on the same factual framework, since \"*in the reasoning for the drug trafficking conviction, that recruitment is used as a phase of the drug trafficking crime, my contribution to the alleged organization, subsequently in the reasoning for the conviction for the crime of money laundering, the same argument of recruiting people to make deposits is used as the main basis for that conviction*\" (folio 7349 verso). He cites in his support, ruling No. 809-F-97 of the former Criminal Cassation Court of San José (Tribunal de Casación Penal de San José). He adds that the reasoning for both illicit acts is the same, which also violates numeral 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He maintains, as a grievance, that he is convicted of two different crimes based on the same facts and the same reasoning. He requests, based on the foregoing, that the decision be annulled and the case be remanded for trial for a single crime of drug trafficking. **Fourth objection corresponding to the appeal against the judgment filed personally by [Name 029].** He accuses \"*Disagreement with the assessment of the evidence*.\" The appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence related to him could not be confirmed. In this regard, he alleges that \"*no seizures were obtained from my person, I was not observed selling narcotics nor were there third-party seizures in my case, nor could the alleged cash deposits be materialized in any financial institution*\" (folio 7350 verso). He explains that he was convicted solely based on telephone conversations that could not be verified and, therefore, of an amphibological nature, insufficient to support a conviction. Contrary to this, he argues that circumstantial evidence must be serious, precise, and concordant, which is not the case in this matter. He indicates, as a grievance, that he was sentenced for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering, based on circumstantial evidence that does not meet the parameters set by the judges themselves. He requests the annulment of the judgment, a new trial, and his freedom. **Third objection corresponding to the appeal in cassation filed by the private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández on behalf of [Name 029].** She accuses **\"*Erroneous assessment of the evidence*\"** . Master Solórzano Hernández argues that the *a quo* omitted to adequately assess the \"*defense evidence presented by the appealing party*\" (cf. folio 7463 front). She explains, in addition to this, that \"*the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the transportation of narcotics in the vehicle mentioned in the judgment was ignored, as well as to the handling of the illicit money* […] *there is no reliable evidence demonstrating that [Name 029] had direct possession or administration of the sums of money mentioned in the judgment, nor that he made the deliveries of narcotics to other criminal organizations, so the possession of drug caches was never materialized in [Name 029]*\" (ibid.). In the introductory part of her appeal, before formulating the grounds for the appeal against the judgment (cf. folios 7453 front to 7455 front.), the appellant points out claims that, due to their connection with the complaint contained in the third ground of the challenge, should be resolved jointly. In particular, she affirms that the coded language obtained from the telephone interceptions cannot serve as the sole evidentiary support for the conviction. Therefore, the reference made to \"*babies*\" and \"*half babies*\" (see folio 7453 verso) without a clear context and without additional evidence that permits reliably establishing its meaning, cannot lead to the conviction of the existence of criminal activity. She mentions in her support, ruling No. 2023-01027 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). She argues that, due to the lack of intellectual evidentiary reasoning, her client was sentenced to 24 years in prison despite the principle of derivation and the presumption of innocence having been violated. She requests the direct issuance of an acquittal due to lack of evidentiary elements supporting the conviction; and subsidiarily, remand for a new trial. The claims must be declared without merit. Contrary to what the appellants have affirmed, in the opinion of this Chamber, the facts held as proven in the judgment and that emanate directly from those described in the prosecutorial accusation, allow an understanding of the actions constituting drug trafficking and those of money laundering. As indicated in the preceding considering clause, the overall description of the events allows the alleged facts to be known and understood; moreover, it provides sufficient information to differentiate the actions of one type of criminality from the other, but more importantly still, it gave the defendant the possibility of being informed of the charges attributed to him and for which he would be tried, in order for him to exercise his right to defense. The accused person, in exercise of his material defense, questioned before this Chamber that, based on the same facts and evidence, he was convicted of two types of criminality, which is incorrect. It is true that in the sections called \"*Facts against [Name 029] and [Name 026] and who were designated by [Name 001]*\" (cf. folios 375 to 409 of the judgment) and \"*Facts against [Name 029] and [Name 026]*\" (cf. folios 881 to 893 according to the judgment's own numbering) there is a partial coincidence in the probative and intellectual reasoning regarding the storage and safeguarding of money proceeds from drug trafficking, as well as the recruitment of third parties to carry out concealment actions of the illicit capital by [Name 029] and his romantic partner, in other sections of the judgment other actions carried out by the accused were addressed that place him as a drug transporter for the organization, as detailed under the headings \"*Case 18-000017-1219-PE. El Bueno Case*\" (cf. folios 409 to 455) and \"*Materialization. Aserrí Case 19-014179-0042-PE*\" (cf. folios 675 to 690 according to the judgment's own numbering). So that, although the appellant is partially correct that the first-instance ruling contains a certain argumentative reiteration in two different sections, this does not constitute an error that compromises its validity. On the contrary, the overall reasoning of the judgment allows identification, without any difficulty, of the foundations that support each of the criminal types charged —as will be seen below— so it is feasible to establish a logical and legal separation between the elements that constitute the crime of drug trafficking and those that correspond to money laundering. For better order in the analysis, what corresponds to each of the accredited functions in the debate stage that were carried out by the defendant will be addressed separately. A) Drug Transportation. The judgment establishes that [Name 029], alias \"[Name 083]\", is one of those in charge of making deliveries of illicit substances to third parties on behalf of [Name 001]. The *a quo* arrived at said conclusion based on the statement of the judicial investigators in charge of the inquiries, the police reports, the content of the telephone communications, and the certified copy of other related cases. Two specific cases, identified by the judicial police as \"El Bueno Case\" and \"Aserrí Case\", are those that allow the inference that [Name 029] was in charge of transporting drugs for delivery to other criminal organizations. The first of those cases was processed under unique number 18-0000171219-PE. Based on the prosecution's evidence, the trial court was able to establish that a parallel investigation was conducted into a criminal structure led by a subject identified as [Name 099], alias \"[Name 109]\", which was supplied with drugs by the criminal organization led by [Name 001], through [Name 029], alias \"[Name 083]\". According to the *a quo*, the person in charge of that activity on Costa Rican soil was identified as [Name 137] and the contact of [Name 029] with the organization was a woman identified as [Name 101], alias \"[Name 110]\", with whom \"[Name 083]\" carried out the illicit transactions around midnight, through the use of coded language to refer to the drug caches, with the terms \"*babys*\", \"*babies*\" (“*bebés*”) or \"*half babies*\" (“*medios bebés*”), among other terms. This Chamber considers that the weighing of the evidence carried out regarding this event and the intellectual reasoning set forth in the judgment is adequate and sufficient. The *a quo* took up the statement given at trial by the judicial investigators [Name 093], [Name 111] and [Name 092], who reported details about the investigation parallel to the present one and the way in which both preliminary investigations were linked. According to the witnesses, the telephone interceptions revealed the existing contact between [Name 029] and [Name 101], who was the person in charge, together with a subject named [Name 114], of receiving the drug for supply to the remaining members of the gang managed by [Name 137]. They detailed the use of coded language with terms such as \"*babies*\" or \"*half babies*\", to refer to the drug; furthermore, that the deliveries of the caches were made around midnight, by alias \"[Name 083]\", who used for those purposes a Mitsubishi brand vehicle, which according to the telephone interceptions was fitted with what is known in police terms as a \"*hidden compartment*\" (“*caleta*”), which is a compartment to hold the illicit material. In this way, between the days of December 28 and 29, 2018, after communications were detected between [Name 029] and \"[Name 051]\" indicating that a drug delivery would be made to him, the judicial police followed the former from the León XIII housing complex to the Tirrases sector, where he delivered what, according to the investigators, was drugs to a motorcyclist, a transaction that took place next to the residence of [Name 114].\n\nThe witnesses recounted that the police presence was detected by alias «[Name 083]», which is why he took evasive maneuvers that included traveling to the province of Alajuela. They added that on that occasion alias «[Name 083]» was accompanied by his wife [Name 026] and a minor. It is important to note that the judicial investigator [Name 111] detailed that in the wiretap (intervención telefónica) conducted in summary proceeding 18-0000171219-PE, [Name 137] told a third party that he received drugs from «[Name 084]», which constitutes an important indicator of the link between both criminal structures —As part of the comprehensive review of the judgment, it was verified that this information also appears in folios 811 and 812 of volume III of the certified copy of the referenced case file 18-000017-1219-PE, where sequence 3769942, from 10:55:06 a.m. on December 20, 2018, is recorded—. The investigators also detailed that in the intercepted communications they spoke of the price of the drug, in 5,100,000 colones, and even the instructions that «[Name 083]» gave to «[Name 116]» on how to arrange the bills that were delivered as payment. In addition, the judgment explains that the information provided by the judicial investigators is supported by the reports added to the case file and by the content of the wiretaps. Of particular interest, the trial court’s ruling also takes up a series of transcriptions of the wiretaps captured during the investigation stage. From sequence 0037100, generated on the tapped line [Value 064], at 00:48 hours on December 7, 2018, [Name 029] talks with his romantic partner [Name 026], to whom he says: “I told [Name 136] that the people already had the money, right, for the babies and that thing” and then adds that he responded: “that at the same time as always, I mean, at twelve” [sic] (cf. f. 426 of the judgment). From that communication, the a quo highlights that [Name 029] was acting on orders from [Name 001], who during the investigation was identified both with the alias of «[Name 084]». Regarding the relationship between «[Name 083]» and [Name 101], the judgment reconstructs it from police report IP-033-EN-19, in which, in turn, a record was made of the communications in which both people interact, the first from the tapped line [Value 077] and the second through right [Value 078]. The sequences correspond to numbers 0009941, from 17:39 hours on November 16, 2018; 0001690, from 17:58 hours on December 6, 2018; 0012936, from 17:03 hours on December 16, 2018; 0014025, from 15:47 hours on December 17, 2018; 0015974, from 19:56 hours on December 18, 2018; 0017350, from 21:49 hours on December 19, 2018; 0018290, from 17:13 hours on December 20, 2018; 0026874, from 14:23 hours on December 28, 2018; 0032871, from 20:51 hours on January 3, 2019; 0034054, from 13:29 hours on January 4, 2019; 0003764, from 12:08 hours on February 7, 2019; 0036944, from 19:07 hours on January 7, 2019; 0006930, from 18:41 hours on February 10, 2019. From those sequences the judgment notes that they speak of “babies,” “half,” “whole,” as a form of coded language to refer to the object that turned out to be drugs, which «[Name 083]» was going to deliver to the aforementioned woman. Also, that the transports were made near midnight and that they spoke of the way payments were made. In this regard, the a quo states: “As the investigators correctly analyzed, the coded language indeed signals that it involves drug dealing, the term babies or babys is always mentioned, as well as the issue of payment for them, for example the following call excerpt: ‘they come to you and leave the money, you count it and, female said—it’s better, [Name 083] said—and I come and pick it up and leave the babies there.../ ...female said—okay then I’ll count it very carefully with [Name 050] and later you come and count and everything the same, [Name 083] said—imagine if it ends up with all the bills perfectly arranged, all neat, female said—man, I promise I’ll leave all the bills how you like them, like this, the series to one side, like this, neat, [Name 083] said—and you put a little rubber band on them so they’re stacked right…’. It is evident that the person with telephone service [Value 078] (who turned out to be [Name 116] / [Name 101]) was the intermediary to receive the drug and, in turn, to have the money that she had to pay [Name 029] in exchange for it. It was clear then that [Name 029] and the user of telephone service [Value 078] (who turned out to be [Name 116] / [Name 101]) turned out to be direct targets of both investigations” (cf. f. 440 of the judgment). This Chamber also observes that in the communications the woman refers to the subject as «[Name 120]», an aspect requiring unavoidable corroboration to verify that, in effect, this is the alias of [Name 029]. From the communications transcribed in the trial court’s ruling, the relevant sequences that stand out are 0009941, with the following passage: “female said then I’ll count it very carefully with [Name 050] and later you come and count and everything the same, [Name 083] said—imagine if it ends up with all the bills perfectly arranged, all neat, female said—man, I promise I’ll leave all the bills how you like them, like this, the series to one side, like this, neat” (cf. f. 428 of the judgment).\n\nAlso sequence 0001690, in which it is stated: «[Nombre 083] said – it's just that right now [Nombre 019] is going to go bring you uhh like a million two hundred eighty-eight something like that, female said – oh ok that's fine for there to move it because honestly the man's neighborhood the man's is hot so to move it so that, for now when I arrive uhhh, female said – have the rest, [Nombre 083] said – uh no no no no, actually they already gave me a part, now actually what's missing is that, female said – Oh good good, [Nombre 083] said – yes so uhh I'll take the babys to them now then, female said – ok you just let me know» (cfr. f. 432). From sequence 0012936, the following stands out: «[Nombre 083] called female and said – well I was already talking to [Nombre 139], female said - and how did it go?, [Nombre 083] said – well he tells me that [Nombre 050] supposedly has to be around nearby I don't know what, that he's renting somewhere and I don't know how much, female said – aha, [Nombre 083] said – so it's that he's going to see or if not he wants to talk to you to see if you do the deal, like they come to you and leave you the money, you count it and, female said – it's better, [Nombre 083] said – and I go pick it up and leave the babies there» [sic] (cfr. f. 433 of the judgment).\n\nFinally, from sequence 0029513 it is evident that «[Name 083]» told [Name 051] about the detection of a police presence, in terms similar to those recounted by the investigators at trial: «[Name 083] said – the thing is that you wouldn't believe the scare the other time, femenina said – up there, [Name 083] said – yeah right, femenina said – why?, [Name 083] said – well I'm not going there, because the guy tells me they don't have a car to get the stuff out and I don't know what, and I'm going, just as I'm turning into the entrance like that starting to go up, a UIP one and a Pick-Up and two cars pull up on me, so before I get to the entrance of [Name 050]'s place I duck into an entrance before it and one follows me, one goes behind me, the thing is I take off through there ah, and one comes out from a side and I stay there frozen, femenina said – aha, [Name 083] said – the thing is I see everything's weird, so I go to [Name 050]'s place, and I call [Name 050] to tell the guy to come and get this stuff out because the thing's looking bad, femenina said – aha, [Name 083] said – so they arrive and call the little guy on the motorcycle and somewhere along the line they call him saying there are some Pick-Ups and a patrol car up there, that the Orga and I don't know what and that something happened up there and I don't know what, and the thing is that a little later we do the whole thing, I load the stuff, and when I leave, and as I'm leaving and there’s this hill there's a Yaris parked like that, femenina said – What do you mean from the Organismo?, [Name 083] said – aha, and as I start going up I start looking and the guy is like frozen like hiding in the seat ah, femenina said – yes, according to him, [Name 083] said – according to him nobody had seen him, so I spot him right away, and as I'm leaving like that for the main road, there's a Hilux car like that, a Mazda with its lights off and everything, and I start going down and the guy comes with his lights off, he comes with his lights off and then like he remembered and turned the lights on, and he came at me and tailed me on the freeway and everything, I pulled off and ducked in over there, listen I ended up in Coyol de Alajuela, and the guy is behind me, femenina said – for real, [Name 083] said – yeah, and the guy in his thing, I never tipped him off that the guy was behind me, femenina said – aha, [Name 083] said – the guy thought that, that I'm a good driver, they haven't tipped them off, in his thing, in his thing, I went over there to Coyol to an aunt of mine's and went, femenina said – and he stayed there?, [Name 083]\n\nsaid – and the guy over there, what the guy expected was for her to go straight to the hole, female said – according to him, [Nombre 083] said – according to him, in his thing, and then later over there on the road I went out again and beeped at him over there and damn, I went into el Coyol and turned around and the stupid son of a bitch kept going on the road, kept going on the road and over there I see him like he was going to stop, so I went into el Coyol and floored it, I came out over there at Dos Pinos and hauled ass home, female said – and the guy didn't catch him, [Nombre 083] said – no way he didn't catch him, there was no way he could turn around, female said – dude that's crazy, dude, [Nombre 083] said – the guy got to the toll, I mean, at the toll thing I turned off before the toll, and went up, I was going slow at the top part to see him, if he comes back here after me he's coming straight for me and the idiot keeps going straight and passes the toll booths and parks to wait for me according to him, to see me, huh, what he didn't know was that I had already hauled ass out of there and the guy couldn't, now he had to go almost to the bridge to make a U-turn and go against traffic, female said – dude, what a scare, see dude, [Nombre 083] said – and I was going to go alone, I was going to go alone, and the lady tells me, \"Where is he?\n\nAnd I don't know what, pull and I took her with my [Name 181] and everything, and she was left cured, well left cured, feminine said – no thank goodness if the police (paca) had stopped you or something, you going without anything now with the lady and the [Name 181] less rough, [Name 083] said – yes and names and you see how nervous it really made me, right, no, that already, feminine said – (mentions something that is not understood) one last one, you tell her remember that day, [Name 083] said – ah, feminine said – the last one, [Name 083] said – ah yes yes obviously, she doesn't want to go now this little shit-scared thing« [sic] (cf. fs. 441 to 442 of the judgment). From this last communication the judgment erroneously indicates that it was generated on December 28, 2018, when the truth is that it occurred on December 30, however, this circumstance does not diminish the analysis carried out, since it is concluded that the information derived from it was consistent with what was referred to in court by the officials of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), regarding the surveillance carried out on alias «[Name 083]» on December 28, 2018, while driving vehicle license plate [Value 068], from the Ciudadela León XIII to the Tirrases sector, where he handed over «the stuff» (la vara), which turned out to be drugs, to a subject identified as «[Name 050]». The judgment highlights that the information referred by the judicial investigators about the existence of summary 18-000017-1219-PE, was corroborated with the review of the certified copy of that summary, which was equally corroborated by this Chamber as part of the comprehensive review of the ruling: «From folio 684 in volume II of the Investigation File (Legajo de Investigación) is located Preliminary Report 076-EN-19, dated March 06, 2019, titled “Request for Detention, Raid, and Registration” (Solicitud de Detención, Allanamiento y Registro), subscribed effectively by the Narcotics Section of the Judicial Investigation Agency, this report gives an account of all the investigative actions, starting with the confidential information that was captured in document 360-EN-19, in the section on identification of the suspects to be detained in the raid request, [Name 137], [Name 138] alias “[Name 139]”, [Name 101], among others, are effectively indicated; in turn the report makes known that the criminal structure is led from Nicaragua by [Name 099] alias “[Name 109]” who was deprived of liberty in said country, also that in Costa Rica the organization was directed by [Name 137], regarding [Name 101] the report states that she was in charge of storing the drugs in San José, Desamparados, San Lorenzo. From folio 819, being in volume II of the investigation file, it is confirmed according to the raid request report that with respect to [Name 101] the telephone service she used was [Value 082], the same that was intercepted and that was reflected in the conversations with [Name 029] alias “[Name 083]”, without forgetting that another of those intercepted was ([Name 137]), circumstances that give probative solidity to the relationship that existed between both organizations and that has been developing, that is, it is accredited that both organizations were functioning in parallel in the same temporal space, where the one directed by [Name 001] supplied drugs to the one directed by [Name 099] through his collaborators in Costa Rica [...] It is thus seen that the functioning of said criminal organization is established at least from June 1, 2017 and that the raids were executed on April 03, 2019, a temporal space that equally encompasses the functioning of the criminal organization judged here and it is also highlighted in the main fact that the leader of the organization that was intended to be raided was [Name 099], also that among the members of the structure was [Name 137] and [Name 101], thus confirming everything related by the investigators who were in charge of both that investigation and that of the criminal structure judged here. The jurisdictional raid order is found from folio 1253 to 1351 of volume III of the investigation file.\n\nThe results of the raids carried out on April 3, 2019 were recorded in police report CI-013-EN-19, which appears starting at folio 1604 in volume IV of the investigation file. It details that 23 people were arrested, among them [Nombre 137], and that among the evidence located, the following were seized, among other items: 12.28 grams of Cannabis Sativa clippings, a plastic wrapper containing 0.30 grams of powdered solid Ketamine, a plastic wrapper containing 0.48 grams of Ketamine, a transparent plastic wrapper containing 1.23 grams of powdered solid Ketamine, a plastic wrapper containing 0.11 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride, and 1437 plastic wrappers, of which at least 1078 contained an estimated net mass of 79.8 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride fragments, drugs that were intended for illicit commercialization at drug sales points controlled by the organization. Thus, having analyzed all the evidentiary elements that are related, the facts are held to be accredited to a degree of certainty» [sic] (cf. fs. 452 to 455). Despite the fact that the defendant was not intercepted while transporting the drugs for delivery to the criminal organization investigated in summary case n.° 18-000017-1219-PE and that the seizure of illicit substances, among these a significant quantity of cocaine doses —as part of the comprehensive review of the judgment, it is verified that the seizure was carried out in a structure identified as «the kitchen», which was the drug dealing site of that criminal organization— was carried out later in the raids executed with jurisdictional authorization, the truth is that, when these pieces of evidence are analyzed in conjunction with those of the case identified as «Aserrí», which will be referred to below, it is feasible to maintain that, indeed, the accused [Nombre 029] fulfilled the role of transporting drugs as a member of the criminal organization, in the vehicle with license plate [Valor 068], for delivery to other structures. For this reason, the conclusion of the lower court (a quo), which accredited the criminal participation of the defendant, in the terms set forth in the accusation, is correct. Now, under the title «Materialization of the Aserrí Case 19014179-0042-PE» (cf. fs. 675 to 690 of the judgment), the trial court set forth the intellectual reasoning through which it determined that a second criminal organization was supplied with drugs by the structure led by alias «[Nombre 084]» and that the person responsible for the transport and deliveries was [Nombre 029]. At this point, once again, the lower court's judgment takes up the testimony of officers [Nombre 092], [Nombre 093], and [Nombre 141], who, in similar terms, stated that the wiretapping yielded indicative information that [Nombre 029], alias «[Nombre 083]», made drug deliveries at very late hours of the night or early morning to other organizations, which led to stationary surveillance and tailing being conducted as an investigative strategy to learn his movements, since that mode of operation was detected in the aforementioned summary case 18-000017-1219-PE. Thus, at the beginning of May 2019, these verification tasks began. On two occasions, alias «[Nombre 083]» was observed leaving Alameda 1 of the Ciudadela León XIII aboard the Mitsubishi brand vehicle, license plates [Valor 068], and heading to the Aserrí sector, to a house located on the west side of the cemetery, where he was seen entering carrying bags —a pattern similar to that observed by the judicial police on December 28, 2018, not only regarding the departure site but also in the use of the same vehicle and the time the activity took place—. It was also observed that third parties would come to the site, to whom an object was delivered, and then they would leave the place. The movements observed, in the opinion of the investigators, were typical of drug transactions. With that information, it was decided to continue with the surveillance and tailing until achieving what is police-wise called a «materialization», that is, a drug seizure, which materialized between May 16 and 17, 2019. Thus, on May 16 in the early morning hours, alias «[Nombre 083]» was once again followed from Alameda 1 of the Ciudadela León XIII to the house of interest in the Aserrí sector, which he entered carrying bags and left a short time later. From that place, a woman left for a nearby store where she acquired some supplies, including bicarbonate, which, according to experience rules, is usually used in the preparation of crack, an action that alerted the investigators and motivated them to maintain surveillance. During the evening hours, they observed the arrival of a Toyota brand, Rav4 style vehicle, from which a subject descended, entered the property, and shortly after left carrying a bag, then left the site. Based on the analysis of the pattern observed by the judicial investigators and which, according to their experience, was typical of drug trafficking, the vehicle was intercepted. Traveling in it were a subject, a woman, and two minors. Inside was located a significant quantity of drug doses that the companion was carrying in his lap, which up to that moment appeared to be crack and which was later confirmed through the corresponding expert report. Based on that seizure and the valid presumption that drugs could be located inside the property, the respective search warrant was requested, which was authorized and executed on May 17, 2019. After entering the property, it was determined that it was not an inhabited place because it lacked household furnishings such as beds or appliances for food preparation. Instead, a safe, already prepared and dosed drugs, pieces of cocaine base crack, packages with cocaine, and cash in low-denomination currency were found. In addition, equipment for drug preparation was located, such as a stove and a gas cylinder. All this information, which derives from the lower court's judgment and was provided by the investigators, as the lower court (a quo) points out, finds support in the police reports of criminal case 19-014179-0042-PE, which correspond to those identified with numbers IP-156-EN-19 and CI-019-EN-19 (cf. ff. 1 to 22 and 80 to 112 of that summary's investigation file). Also, in report IP-227-EN-19, prepared for this summary case (cf. fs. 551 to 557 of the investigation file). Importantly, it is noteworthy that, based on the information derived from those documents, some data were clarified, such as the quantity of drugs seized from the occupants of the Rav4 vehicle, which consisted of 2521 wrappers with cocaine fragments, as well as 2 additional wrappers with 200.27 grams of cocaine. Regarding the findings from the raid, attention is drawn to the location of a black and silver digital scale, plastic wrappers, sodium bicarbonate, and small blades, which, according to experience rules, are used for the preparation of drug doses. Also, 50 plastic wrappers with cocaine fragments, 1 bag with residues of cocaine fragments, 2 wrappers with a total of 2004.16 grams of cocaine, and ₡1,480,075. The judgment emphasizes that in that parallel case, the Public Ministry filed an accusation and request for the opening of trial against the persons identified as [Nombre 102], [Nombre 107], [Nombre 104], and [Nombre 105], the first three linked to the house and the last one who removed the doses from the place and then transported them in the Toyota Rav4 vehicle. From the review that this Chamber conducted of the certified copy of case file 19-014179-0042-PE, it was possible to compare the information referenced in the judgment. It was observed that report IP-156-EN-19 consists of a request for a search that used as its basis the result of the surveillance conducted at the house and the seizure of the drugs that [Nombre 105] was transporting in the vehicle with license plates [Valor 083] (cf. fs. 1 to 22 of the investigation file). Also taken into consideration was seizure record 0008434 detailing the seizure of the drugs from [Nombre 105] (cf. f. 25 of the investigation file). The search warrant issued by the Juzgado Penal de Turno Extraordinario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José at 06:48 hours on May 17, 2019 (cf. fs. 45 to 55 of the investigation file), accompanied by the notification and raid records (cf. fs. 58 to 60 of the investigation file), the judicial police evidence report CI-019-EN-19 (cf. fs. 80 to 112 of the investigation file), signed, among others, by [Nombre 093], who was one of the trial witnesses, and the expert opinion DCF: 201902659-QUI, according to which of the 2521 wrappers seized from [Nombre 105], at least 1891 contained an estimated net mass of 161 grams of cocaine. The fragments seized from that same subject contained 200.27 grams of powdered cocaine solid. Of the drugs seized inside the house, the two packages contained 2004.16 grams of compact cocaine solid, and the dosed drug contained cocaine fragments (cf. fs. 184 to 187 of the investigation file). From this entire account, this Chamber agrees that it is possible to determine that the seized drugs were supplied by the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001] and that the person directly responsible for the transport was [Nombre 029], alias «[Nombre 083]», by delegation of the former. Precisely, due to the coincidence in the pattern observed in the two parallel summary cases referred to, this Chamber agrees with the lower court (a quo) that it is possible to determine that, on the occasions when the judicial police conducted surveillance and tailing of [Nombre 029], he was carrying out the transport and supply of drugs to third parties using the Mitsubishi brand, Montero style vehicle, circulation plate [Valor 075], which accredits his criminal participation, as a co-author, in the crime of drug trafficking, as set forth in facts 4.1, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36, and 4.37.\n\nB) Custody, administration, and conversion into foreign currency of the money derived from drug trafficking. As a starting point, it is relevant to point out that this tribunal assumes the position according to which the perpetrator of the predicate offense may also be the perpetrator of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), when they carry out any of the conduct typified in numeral 69 of Ley N.° 8204, as occurs in this matter. This position, which validates as an independent illicit act the action of enjoying, concealing, transferring, or transforming the earnings from illicit activity, has been upheld by the Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia in various rulings; however, ruling n.° 2022-00716, from 10:56 hours on June 29, 2022, is highlighted, because it was the one adopted by the trial court on this issue. The ruling, as relevant, states: «In another order of ideas, it is also unavoidable to address the topic of self-laundering (auto lavado), as established in numeral 69 of the cited law. According to the wording of this article transcribed above, a double intent (dolo) is required; that is, knowledge and acceptance that the assets to be legitimized come from a serious crime (punishable with penalties that have a threshold of at least four years of imprisonment) and the knowledge and will to carry out the actions provided for in subsections a) and b) of ordinal 69 of the mentioned law, namely: “Article 69.- Shall be sanctioned with a prison term of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts, or transmits assets of economic interest, knowing that these originate from a crime that, within its range of penalties, can be sanctioned with a prison term of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to hide or conceal the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the offenses to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever hides or conceals the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement, or rights over the assets or the property thereof, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its range of penalties can be sanctioned with a prison term of four (4) years or more. (…)” (the underlining does not belong to the original). That knowledge and acceptance of the prior crime does not exclude that they acquired it by virtue of their own participation in the prior illicit act. Such limitation, exception, or prohibition is not described in the referred ordinal and, for this reason, nothing prevents the perpetrator of the predicate offense from also being the perpetrator of the crime that sanctions money laundering. These are distinct punitive conducts, diverse protected legal interests (bienes jurídicos), just as the intent required in the prior criminality is also different from that in asset laundering. The latter, in turn, is a common crime that can be committed by any active subject without them meeting special characteristics of authorship.[...] In this order of ideas, it is the criterion of this Cámara de Casación Penal that the criminal type prescribed in Law number 8204 does not contain any exception or limitation that prevents sanctioning the crime of asset laundering for the perpetrator of the predicate offense, since it is a common crime, which protects different legal interests, with illicit conducts not subsumable into each other, and where the law itself makes no reservation or exception». The criterion set forth, as already indicated, is endorsed by this Chamber, which is why it is estimated that the conclusions of the lower court (a quo) on the matter, set forth at the beginning of the section «Intellectual reasoning on the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales)» (cf. fs. 791 to 794 of the judgment) are correct. This topic of the judgment was not questioned by the technical or material defense; however, for greater clarity of the pronouncement, it was deemed pertinent to clarify it prior to what will be indicated below. By virtue of the fact that the judgment analyzes in a single section the legal situation of [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], the intellectual reasoning involving both defendants will likewise be addressed in this section, regarding the handling of money derived from drug trafficking. Having analyzed the judgment, this Chamber considers that the intellectual reasoning expressed by the lower court (a quo) to hold facts 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 5 as proven is adequate, sufficient, and correct.\n\nRegarding the safeguarding of money in the defendants' home, the judgment argued the following: \"Having more than clear the operational dynamics in a given timeframe, where it was also determined that [Name 029] and [Name 026], who were a couple, performed functions assigned by [Name 001] regarding the accounting and administration of money proceeds from drug trafficking (tráfico de Drogas), given that on December 6, 2018, they maintained under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the home located at [...], an amount of approximately 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. To have the preceding event as proven, the prosecutorial entity offered as a witness the judicial investigator [Name 142], who in relevant part testified: 'I work in the Narcotics Section (Sección de Estupefacientes), I have received training for drug trafficking, it was given by training colleagues through the basic police course, I know because […].. my duties in the investigation were in the office: report preparation, inquiries, analysis of synopses of what the criminal judge sent, report preparation, synopses I remember conversations between [Name 026] and [Name 029] alias [Name 083], they talked about amounts of 4 million, 9 million, [Name 083] asked [Name 026] how much money was saved'; the investigator's statement is in effect documented in the call with sequence 0001622, the transcription of which indicates: 'From [Value 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0001622. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the telephone service user [Value 084]. This call was made at 16:34 hours on December 6, 2018. [Name 083] called a female and said – hey love, you, you have to count that money well because supposedly there, um, there should be in total with what I have here which is four million and with what you have there it should be seven million nine hundred ninety-three thousand, female said – and how much is there?, [Name 083] said – there is, there is seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand, the two hundred eighty-nine that you have there, how much is it two million, three million?, female said – mm-hmm, [Name 083] said – two million two hundred, female said – mm-hmm hey we have to count that again, female said – mm-hmm, I'm going to make a fresh one and I'll review it right now; they say goodbye. Communication ends.' (call from volume I of the transcription dossier, also see folio 82 report IP-033-EN-19, the highlighting is ours). It was also considered accredited that as part of the functions performed by the defendants [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of money proceeds from drug trafficking (tráfico de Drogas), on December 21, 2018, they maintained under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the home located at [...], an amount of approximately 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system, to accredit the fact there is the telephone call with sequence 0013990, the transcription of which states: 'From [Value 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0013990. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the telephone service user [Value 084]. This call was made at 21:12 hours on December 21, 2018.\n\n[Nombre 083] called feminine and feminine said – love then in the bag that guy didn't give now, feminine said – there are two million fifty thousand, [Nombre 083] said – two million fifty thousand, sure sure?, not two million one hundred?, feminine said – no, fifty, [Nombre 083] said – sure?, feminine said – yes my love I already reviewed it again and all for the same because I didn't know it was two hundred but I'm counting, [Nombre 083] said – well then I'm going to tell the guy, feminine said – and in this other bag there were two million five hundred fifty, [Nombre 083] said – uh-huh, feminine said – see, [Nombre 083] said – then there are four six hundred, feminine said – uh-huh, [Nombre 083] said – well then I'm going to tell the guy, love that's fine; they say goodbye. Communication ends”. (call from volume I of the transcription file, also see folio 82 and 83 of report IP-033-EN-19, highlighting is ours). Continuing with the same line of argument, it was proven that as part of the functions performed by the defendants [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029], regarding the accounting and administration of money derived from drug trafficking, on December 31, 2018, they kept in their custody, disposal, and storage, at the dwelling located in [...], an amount of approximately 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred and ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. The foregoing event is proven based on the call with sequence 0029642, which was transcribed as follows: “From [Valor 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0029642.\n\nThe tapped phone line maintains communication with the user of the tapped phone service [Value 084]. This call was made at 00:31 hours on the day of December 31, 2018. [Name 083] called the female and said – tell me my love, [Name 083] said – my love, I need you to take out five hundred for me, which I think are already in a bag, female said – uh-huh, [Name 083] said – and from the other thing I need you to take out four three ninety for me, four three ninety, I need you to take out like, four three, it only has four million three hundred ninety, female said – ujumm, [Name 083] said – and it's five million three hundred eighty thousand that they have to give, female said – ujumm, [Name 083] said – so then well you have to make up the five hundred, if it has four million three hundred ninety, female said – ah ok to four three ninety, [Name 083] said – you have to add the rest, female said – five hundred minus four three ninety, [Name 083] said – uh-huh, female said – seven ten you have to take out, [Name 083] said – ah well you add them, if you can add them from the money they gave me from the eight hundred, how is it, there is eight hundred and three eighty something like that, female said – three twenty, [Name 083] said – eh three twenty, female said – I'll take them from there, [Name 083] said – yes take them from there, female said – the seven ten I'll take from the eight hundred and from the three twenty that are saved, [Name 083] said – uh-huh the eight hundred and the three, female said – uh-huh, let's say there is about one hundred twenty, [Name 083]\n\n– exactly, female – I take out the seven hundred and ten from there, [Name 083] said – aha, female – okay my love, [Name 083] said – put them aside for me so I can arrive and count everything properly, they say goodbye.\n\nThe conversation ends\" (call from Volume II of the transcription file, also see folio 84 report IP-033-EN-19, highlighting is ours)» [sic] (cf. fs. 394 to 397 of the judgment). As can be seen from the preceding passage, the accreditation of these actions derives mainly from the content of the wiretaps, an exercise that is legally valid. This is because the probative value of the information obtained from the interception of communications depends on multiple factors, including the specific content of the captured conversation, the language used by the interlocutors, and the context in which the communication takes place. In this case, the conversations between [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] recorded in the judgment allude, clearly and directly, to the existence of sums of money in their custody. These are unequivocal expressions, devoid of ambiguity, whose meaning can be extracted without the need for interpretations or external corroborating sources. The meaning of the conversation is fully understandable from merely listening to it, which reinforces its probative value in proving the acts attributed to the accused. Added to the above are the actions aimed at exchanging currency with that money, as detailed in fact 4.5, for which [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] enlisted the help of third parties. On this matter, the judgment states: \"Subsequent to the 3 previously analyzed events, it has been proven that as part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, in the period from January 2019 until October 2020, the accused **[Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029],** were in charge of the recruitment function of third persons, who were responsible for making deposits of money from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as performing the functions of currency exchange and purchase, this with the purpose of incorporating the money from drug trafficking into the national banking system. To prove this circumstance and given the time frame, the following calls, which have their respective transcriptions, were reproduced in the hearing: *From [Valor 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0010354. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Valor 084]. This call was made at 11:12 hours on 12 April 2019. \"[Nombre 026] called [Nombre 083], from minute 00:00:27 to minute 00:00:38 the following was extracted: [Nombre 083] said – I am going to go to Tibás, [Nombre 026] said – ujumm, [Nombre 083] said – to make a deposit and to change a million (he mentioned something that was not understood), [Nombre 026] said - what for?, [Nombre 083] said – and to change some money, [Nombre 026] said – ah okay fine. from minute 00:00:53 to minute 00:01:04 the following was extracted: [Nombre 083] said – I am going to do that to see if I can get out of that thing, pay that, go change that money to give it to that guy\". The conversation ended. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0010421. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 12:03 hours on 12 April 2019.*\n\n[Nombre 083] called Subject, Subject said – hello, [Nombre 083] said - Where are you?, Subject said – ah, [Nombre 083] said - Where are you?, Subject said – man, I'm going to the nacional, you see, there are no dollars here, [Nombre 083] said - the nacional where?, Subject said – the one here in Tibás, [Nombre 083] said – (mentioned something that was not understood), Subject said – it's just that here they only exchanged six hundred, [Nombre 083] said – which one, at the BC? Which one are you at?, Subject said – at the Bac, [Nombre 083] said – well then, go up to the BCR, man, or go up to the Lincoln, Subject said – to the Lincoln, [Nombre 083] said – yeah man, because honestly this shit is packed everywhere, it's fucking full of people, I was around there, Subject said – well, I'm going to check out the BCR to see how much they'll exchange for me, because what's missing is like four hundred thousand, it's not much, [Nombre 083] said – yeah, yeah, they'll exchange it for you there, Subject said – I'm going to check it out so I don't have to go all the way over there then, [Nombre 083]\n\n– well, Subject said – you where are you headed, going to Lincoln?, [Name 083] said – no no I already changed, asshole, I changed at the BRC, Subject said – well well, [Name 083] said – I have to go make a deposit there at the Nacional man you dummy if you could see how it is, Subject said – well well, [Name 083] said – well”.\n\n*The conversation ended.* *From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0039634. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 11:28 hours on 10 de mayo de 2019.* “[Nombre 083] spoke with a subject, [Nombre 083] said - where are you, you dumbass?, subject said – hello, [Nombre 083] said - where are you?, subject said - huh?, [Nombre 083] said – where are you?, subject said – man, here in Barrio México, [Nombre 083] said – haaaa, subject said - why?, [Nombre 083] said – well nothing, that we have to go change a little plate there, subject said – well man, I'm on my way over, [Nombre 083] said - how soon will you get here?, subject said – well, [Nombre 083] said - huh?, subject said - twenty minutes?, man, he said – okay, go ahead go ahead, subject said – it's just that I'm with [Nombre 143] and well I have to take it easy, if not I'd be there in two minutes, [Nombre 083] said – it's fine, it's fine, subject said – look, [Nombre 083] said – hey, subject said - and do you need another one?, [Nombre 083] said – mmm, man well no, no because it's just a little bit, subject said – so you can take [Nombre 144], [Nombre 083] said – oh yeah yeah yeah, for anything yeah yeah but not right now; they say goodbye”. Communication ends. *From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0045996. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 084]. This call was made at 12:34 hours on 16 de mayo de 2019.* “[Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 026], [Nombre 026] said – love, [Nombre 083] said – hey, [Nombre 026] said – [Nombre 074] is here, [Nombre 083] said – yes, get the one from the other bag, [Nombre 026] said - should he go to San José with us?, [Nombre 083] said – well yes but well, have him go to a different bank because, well, are the three of you going to the same place?, [Nombre 026] said – yes, that's fine, [Nombre 083] said – okay”. Communication ends. *From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0046048. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 13:21 hours on 16 de mayo de 2019.*\n\n[Name 083] spoke with subject, subject said – man, I already have this here what about the other thing?, [Name 083] said – I'm on my way down now, head to my place, subject said - which way are you coming?, [Name 083] said – I'm leaving here from Tibás heading down, subject said – oh okay better when you're at the house call me so I don't go there with this shit and find no one, subject said – okay, [Name 083] said – ok. Communication ends. From [Value 077]. Call identified with the sequence number 0046092. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 13:57 hours on the day of May 16, 2019. \"[Name 123] spoke with [Name 083], [Name 123] said – man, [Name 083] said – hey, [Name 123] said – is that guy going to come then?, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 123] said – well yeah, to get that thing out then, if you want let's head out right now, [Name 083] said – yes, to change what's left, [Name 123] said - is almost everything ready?, [Name 083] said – just one left now, [Name 123] said – oh good good good, then I'll be on the corner; they say goodbye. Communication ends. From [Value 077]. Call identified with the sequence number 0046235. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service 88340857. This call was made at 16:15 hours on the day of May 16, 2019. \"[Name 083] spoke with [Name 026], [Name 026] said – love, [Name 083] said – tell me, [Name 026] said – well no, just if you were writing me something, you see my phone turned off, [Name 083] said – no no, [Name 026] said – haa where are you?, [Name 083] said – right here in Tibás, [Name 026] said – haaa are you doing that?, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 026] said – haaa, you know, [Name 083] said. And there was a fake five thousand bill, [Name 026] said – mine too, you should have seen what a hassle, [Name 083] said – damn fool, [Name 026] said – in mine too and they made me fill out a form there and, [Name 083] said – me too, [Name 026] said – aha, [Name 083] said – yes me too, [Name 026] said – yes and they confiscated it and I tell him as long as you don't call the police, he says no no nothing else the bill just gets confiscated, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 026] said - are you coming home right now?, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 026] said – oh okay I'm heading there, [Name 083] said – no no, from here we're going to Lincoln, [Name 026] said – ah still not done?, [Name 083] said – yes still a little bit left, that of [Name 151], [Name 026] said – oh okay that's fine then; they say goodbye. Communication ends. From [Value 077].\n\nCall identified with the sequence number 0046263. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 085]. This call was made at 16:41 hours on the day of May 16, 2019. \"[Name 083] spoke with subject, [Name 083] said – man I'm here in front of the welfare queen's, subject said – uhum, [Name 083] said - are you going to be long?, subject said – man they have to open the this activate that account, otherwise they only change a thousand dollars, [Name 083] said – mmm, but is she already opening it?, subject said – yes, but she says that takes a while, [Name 083] said - and the other guys'?, subject said – well there they are, [Name 083] said - the same?, subject said – I don't know, [Name 083] said – okay, subject said – but I don't know about them; they say goodbye\". Communication ends. From [Value 077]. Call identified with the sequence number 0051493. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 087]. This call was made at 04:21 hours on the day of May 22, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 022] alias [Nombre 123] spoke with [Nombre 083], from minute 00:00:37 to minute 00:00:57 the following was discussed: [Nombre 123] said – I'm getting up at seven right now to give something to [Nombre 016] because he has to go drop them off at (mentioned something unintelligible), [Nombre 083] said – what what, [Nombre 123] said – that right now, oh okay when you go pick up the food I'll head out with you to see if I can stop by the bank for a bit, [Nombre 083] said – like at seven man it's crazy, [Nombre 123] said – well yes to go to the bank, asshole. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0056119. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 16:46 hours on the day of 27 May 2019. \"[Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with a male subject, male subject said – man, [Nombre 083] said - what?, male subject said - where are you?, [Nombre 083] said – man here in, I was going by Buen Pa, male subject said – man don't you see they won't change it for me at the National, [Nombre 083] said - uh-huh and what?, male subject said – and at BCR they already closed, [Nombre 083] said – well then go to the to the bank of I don't know what there at the\n\nLincoln man, male subject said – ok, [Nombre 083] said – ok\". Communication ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0058788. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 088]. This call was made at 04:35 hours on the day of 31 May 2019. \"[Nombre 007] alias \"[Nombre 109]\" spoke with a male subject identified as [Nombre 083], [Nombre 109] said – man come over so I can give you some money that that guy said I should give to you, [Nombre 083] said – well I know, motherfucker, I'm just going by AyA right now man, step out to the corner, [Nombre 109] said – I'm here, [Nombre 083] said – ok\". Communication ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0062004. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 10:44 hours on the day of 04 June 2019. \"[Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with a male subject, [Nombre 083] said – man we have to go there to change, can you?, male subject said - huh?, [Nombre 083] said – we have to go change, can you?, male subject said - where are you?, [Nombre 083] said – well here, come to the house and pick up, male subject said – ok, [Nombre 083] said – but you have to find a way to go man because I have to go too, male subject said – well I'll see then, I'll let you know, [Nombre 083] said – well ok the stuff is here, male subject said – well ok\". Communication ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0062186. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 084]. This call was made at 15:10 hours on the day of 04 June 2019. \"[Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with [Nombre 026], [Nombre 026] said – love, [Nombre 083] said – tell me, [Nombre 026] said - hasn't [Nombre 151] arrived from La Uruca? It's stopped raining now, [Nombre 083] said – I'll call him to see what's up because he told me he tells me, he put me on hold with \"I'm on my way\", [Nombre 026] said – tell him to hurry up because well I have to go do that thing too, [Nombre 083] said – okay, I'm going love, [Nombre 026] said – ok\". Communication ends. From [Valor 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0063280. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 089]. This call was made at 10:34 hours on the day of 06 June 2019. \"([Nombre 029]) alias [Nombre 083] spoke with a Female.\n\nFemale said— Hello, [Name 083] said— hello, look, Female said— what's up, [Name 083] said— you can go change that thing, Female said— yes, at what time?, [Name 083] said— well, I don't know, right now if you want I'll let you know so you can be on the highway so I can give you the money, Female said— ah ok ok that's fine and I can go at any time during the day, [Name 083] said— the thing is I need it early, I mean fast, Female said— ah ok ok, that's fine, they say goodbye.” The conversation ended. From [Value 090]. Call identified with sequence number 0200128. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service not reflected. This call was made at 10:26 a.m. on May 27, 2019. “Female spoke with [Name 026], female said— [Name 026], hey look, well they tell me they can only change five hundred dollars for me, so what do I do?, [Name 026] said— noo, you have to go to San José, female said— haaa okay, no no, so you take it and you change it, like that, is that okay?, [Name 026] said— y yes; they say goodbye.” End of communication» [sic] (cfr. pp. 400 to 406 according to the judgment's own numbering). It is important to note that, even though the a quo considered it established that the defendants used third parties to make cash deposits into the accounts of the remaining members of the criminal group, this circumstance is not actually derived from the intellectual foundation set forth in the judgment. Note that, in the calls transcribed in the previous passage, the only times cash deposits are mentioned, it is [Name 029] who states that he must make them. In addition to the above, no reference is made that the beneficiaries of those actions are the other accused. Despite the above, the other conduct attributed to ([Name 004]) and [Name 026], related to the handling of money derived from drug trafficking and the actions aimed at its conversion into foreign currency, do emerge from the evidence assessed in the judgment. Again, the use of clear and express language is observed in the records where the defendants talk about currency exchange, as part of the actions to conceal and convert the illicit capital. The communications reveal an established method that involved the use of third parties for those purposes, the exchange of specific amounts, knowledge of banking institution hours, and a reiteration of those actions over time. Importantly, this Chamber observes that in sequence 0010354 [Name 029] expressly tells [Name 026] that he must change money to give it to “ese mae”. On many occasions, the individuals under investigation referred to [Name 001] precisely in that way, as a means of concealing his identity, but which all members of the organization understood. One of those occasions where the reference was clear and evident was when the momentary apprehension of [Name 001] by the Public Force occurred, as can be seen from sequence 0323442, at 9:00 p.m. on December 3, 2018, in which [Name 010] identifies him in that manner. The evidence reveals, then, that [Name 001] was one of the direct recipients of the money, which is logical given his leadership position, as well as the high-value assets with which he was linked during the investigation stage and subsequently proven at trial. It is important to highlight that even [Name 026] referred to [Name 001] as “el patrón” in sequence 0014218 when speaking with a third party, as established by the a quo. Another aspect that this Court also verifies is that, in at least two communications, it is observed that [Name 029] agreed with [Name 022], alias “[Name 123]”, to meet to carry out the currency exchange. This fact is of particular importance because during the search conducted at this latter individual's residence, a total of $10,000 in cash was seized, which undoubtedly reinforces not only the connection between the individuals but also the connection of the seized money to the illicit activity of drug trafficking. Also, a receipt with the number 14105387 was found, for the purchase of foreign currency, specifically $600, which coincides with the indicated dynamic. Regarding this latter point, the lower court first established the offense of trafficking, in which [Name 029] acted as a drug courier under instructions from [Name 001], from which the origin of the money clearly emerges, because he was the one who directly received the payments upon delivering the illicit substances.\n\nIn this regard, the judgment states: «Analyzing the foregoing calls jointly and taking into account the facts proven against [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], both delegates designated as such by the leader [Nombre 001], and which occurred on the days of December 6, December 21, and December 31, all in the year 2018, the criminal actions allow for a global understanding of the criminal phenomenon of drug trafficking in its modalities at the national level (street-level dealing, micro-trafficking), from which experience has taught us about the complexity and totality of the scope of this illicit act, being that one of the pillars in the continuous operation of these criminal groups and therefore their utmost motivation derives from the purchasing power and immense monetary gains that have their genesis in the trafficking of prohibited substances, gains which, having their origin in a punishable act, they must attempt to legitimize and introduce into our national economic and financial system, reflecting the preceding communications a clear example of this assertion, evidencing the distinct tasks carried out by [Nombre 029] alias [Nombre 083] using their telephone number [Valor 077] and in the case of [Nombre 026] using the telephone service [Valor 090], both telephone services duly accredited to each of them as analyzed [sic] in the three prior events; thus, the roles of both in the recruitment of persons to make bank deposits, currency exchange and/or purchases are clearly understood, the female being tasked on various occasions with finding persons or \"front persons\" whose sole purpose is to make bank deposits of high amounts of money in a fragmented manner and thereby avoid any alert issued by any banking entity and thus avoid any trace of banking activity, which is why it is more than demonstrated that they carried out actions to convert, transfer assets of economic interest, as well as conceal the true nature, the origin, knowing that the money stored by them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused **[Nombre 001],** being among the recruited persons that of the user of telephone right [Valor 198] and who, as a result of the wiretaps conducted by the criminal judge as well as the investigation proceedings, was accredited to [Nombre 151], identification document [Valor 092], who is one of the persons tasked with making deposits or purchasing currency, likewise, the amounts of money that would be under the control and enjoyment of the criminal structure led by [Nombre 001] were reflected, who additionally in the communication under sequence 0058788 alias [Nombre 109] indicated \"[Nombre 109] *said* – mae come over to give you some money that *said* guy told me to give to you, [Nombre 083] *said* – well I know motherfucker, I'm barely going by AyA mae...\" again exposing how by referring to \"THAT GUY\" it was used to point to alias [Nombre 084], who additionally according to the communication would be sending an amount of money to alias [Nombre 083] through alias [Nombre 109], noting again the caution on the part of alias [Nombre 084] in delivering the money and using a third party for it and thus avoiding any possible sign before any police work» [sic] (cfr. pp. 406 to 407 according to the judgment's own numbering). With the exception already indicated regarding the deposits of money into the bank accounts of the accused, the remaining assessments made by the trial court are correct, since the evidence, in effect, reflects a clear and evident connection between the crime of drug trafficking and the money that, through [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], was entered into the national banking system through currency exchange for its subsequent use in the acquisition of high-value assets by the criminal structure. Regarding the origin of the money and the knowledge the accused had of that circumstance, the judgment indicates: «Finally, and by way of closing, it has been clearly demonstrated that [Nombre 029] was the person designated by [Nombre 001] for the delivery of the drug stashes that were being sold at that time, since in a telephone call [Nombre 029] makes reference to [Nombre 026] that they *said* to the \"[Nombre 136]\" that the people already had the money for the babies, which evidently means that the drug was not given away, but rather that money was received in exchange for it, a circumstance that in turn allows the inference that Mr. [Nombre 001] also delegated the administration and custody of said money to [Nombre 029] and their domestic partner [Nombre 026], custody and administration that was carried out from the home of both, one must not forget the constant calls between them, referring to the counting of the monies from the babies or half-babies, to specific amounts and additionally as part of the administration of the same they recruited persons to make bank deposits and currency exchange, without forgetting that regarding [Nombre 026] in the call with sequence 0014218, [Nombre 026] tells [Nombre 152]: \"come by where the boss is\", and [Nombre 152] says: \"where [Nombre 153]?, [Nombre 026] nods, in turn tells them it is to give them some money. We see then how for [Nombre 026] the figure of alias \"[Nombre 153]\" is in reference to the boss which is the same as saying chief, undoubtedly referring to alias \"[Nombre 084]\" who is clearly [Nombre 001], which is why it is completely understandable that [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] acted in compliance with the functions that were assigned and delegated clearly by [Nombre 001]» [sic] (cfr. pp. 890 to 891 of the judgment). As already indicated, the term «babies» was one of the forms of coded language with which the investigated referred to the drug. By alias «[Nombre 083]» telling their wife that they spoke with «[Nombre 136]» —which is one of the aliases of [Nombre 001]— regarding the fact that the people had the money for the babies, it can be inferred that the woman had knowledge that the money came from the payment for the drug trafficked by her husband. In any case, this Chamber highlights that, in the transport of drugs carried out by [Nombre 029] on December 28, 2018, he was accompanied by [Nombre 026], which was extracted not only from the statement of the judicial investigators, but from sequence 0029513, 20:51 hours on December 30, 2018, partially transcribed in prior lines (cfr. pp. 440 to 441 of the judgment). Added to the above, as another aspect considered by the *a quo*, is that [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] did not have records of lawful work activities that would justify managing large amounts of money. In that sense, the first-instance ruling highlights: «It is more than clear that the money that [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] inserted into the financial system was the product of drug trafficking given the direct relationship between the drug deliveries made by ([Nombre 004]) and the receipt and administration of the monies that the calls between both reflected, beyond that according to what was declared by the judicial officers of Legitimación de Capitales and as was set out in the reports rendered, neither of them is accredited as a salaried employee or as insured, as it was set out: “5.10.1.\n\n[Nombre 029], alias “[Nombre 083]”, of legal age, Costa Rican, bearer of identity card [Valor 011], born on February 27, 1989, 31 years old, son of [Nombre 005] and [Nombre 006], married to [Nombre 026], identity card [Valor 010], registered address in [...]. 5.10.2. Costa Rican Social Security Fund Information. It was determined, according to queries made in the databases of the digital platform of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, electronic link: https://pensiones.ccss.sa.cr: that the individual under investigation here registered as a salaried employee in the years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, information broken down below: 5.10.3. Tax Information. In accordance with the query made on the Ministry of Finance page, specifically in the Taxpayer Identification System “SIC”, it was established that the individual under investigation here does not present and has not presented records of economic activities or tax obligations..[…] 5.12.1. [Nombre 026], of legal age, Costa Rican, bearer of identity card [Valor 010], born on September 19, 1994, 25 years old, daughter of [Nombre 027] and [Nombre 028], married to [Nombre 029], identity card [Valor 011], registered address in [...]. 5.12.2. Costa Rican Social Security Fund Information. It was determined, according to queries made in the databases of the digital platform of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, electronic link: https://pensiones.ccss.sa.cr: that the individual under investigation here registered as a salaried employee in the years 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018, information broken down below: For the years 2013 and 2014, continuous records appear from the month of October to January, during which she worked for the company MC Donalds Costa Rica CR Food Service S.A- Arcos Dorados Costa Rica ADCR S.A, under employer number [Valor 093]. For the years 2016, 2017, and 2018, she registered continuously from May 2016 to February 2018, where she worked for the company Acrílicos S.A, employer number 3-101-043120. 5.12.3. Tax Information. In accordance with the query made on the Ministry of Finance page, specifically in the Taxpayer Identification System “SIC”, it was established that the individual under investigation here does not present and has not presented records of economic activities or tax obligations.” (see report 25-SLC-CI-20, emphasis added)» [sic] (cf. pages 891 to 892 of the judgment). Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes that, contrary to what the appellants claimed, the judgment contains an adequate intellectual foundation regarding the actions attributed to [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], related to the administration of money derived from drug trafficking and its subsequent conversion into foreign currency—the situation of the latter will be elaborated upon when considering the appeals filed on her behalf—. Now, the aforementioned actions, in the opinion of the trial court, constitute the offenses of drug trafficking and money laundering, with which this Chamber concurs. Although it is true that there is a partial coincidence in the description of facts related to drug trafficking and money laundering, in points 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of the factual account, it is not necessary to dwell on this point, because, unlike the situation of the defendant [Nombre 026]—which will be analyzed in greater detail later—, in the case of [Nombre 029], additional facts are imputed that place him as a drug transporter for the organization, hence it is easier to observe and differentiate the principal actions of drug trafficking from those aimed at concealing money derived from that activity and its insertion into the financial system through conversion into foreign currency, for which he was declared a responsible perpetrator of the offense of money laundering. The penalty for the two crimes, which do not exclude each other, stems from the lack of a unity of action in a legal sense, coupled with the harm to protected legal interests of a different nature, so that, in this matter, the crime of drug trafficking does not integrally contain the totality of the actions carried out by [Nombre 029], and hence he is sanctioned, additionally, for the offense of money laundering. See that, in the criminal type provided for in numeral 69 of Law No. 8204, the legislator opted to sanction separately from the preceding offense anyone who acquires, converts, or transfers assets of economic interest, conceals or covers up their origin; as well as the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over different assets or their ownership, and anyone who helps the offender evade the legal consequences of their acts, so that, when the accused incurs actions additional to drug transportation, which fit this criminal description—as previously indicated—, the declaration of criminal responsibility for both offenses is entirely possible—refer to the reading of considerando XIII for greater breadth on this circumstance—. Bearing in mind that the two offenses attributed to [Nombre 029] were correctly weighed in the appealed judgment, it is appropriate to address some of the complaints raised by the technical and material defense in their challenges. Regarding the absence of direct evidence, such as flagrant seizures of drugs or money, this circumstance in no way diminishes the accreditation of the criminal responsibility of ([Nombre 004]), in the terms set forth in the judgment. Let us remember that our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence, according to which facts may be proven through any evidentiary element that has a lawful origin, as established by article 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The requirement of direct evidence sought by the appellants seems to allude to a system of tarifed evidence that is more than outdated. What is stated in the appeals, in the sense that the accused was convicted solely based on the content of the intercepted telephone communications, is not correct. Said evidentiary element constituted a highly relevant lead, with greater emphasis regarding the crime of money laundering, but it was not the only one. As is clear from the preceding lines, for the accreditation of the crime of drug trafficking, a significant number of proceedings were carried out involving surveillance and tracking of the individual, to corroborate the information derived from the captured conversations, but, furthermore, there were two parallel investigations in which significant drug seizures were carried out, which can be linked indefectibly to the defendant. Regarding the crime of money laundering, there are, in addition to the captured communications, the location of high-value assets in the possession of different members of the criminal organization, among them [Nombre 001], despite the fact that the persons investigated lacked lawful sources of income to justify them. Moreover, one must not forget the seizure of money carried out at the residence of [Nombre 022], who was one of the persons who, together with [Nombre 029], exchanged the organization's money, from colones to dollars, in different banking entities. The truth is that the body of evidence taken into consideration is broad and conclusive, without being limited solely to the interception of telephone communications, all of which was extensively addressed in this considerando. It is the joint weighing of the circumstantial evidence that allows concluding that the conclusions reached by the a quo are correct, regarding the involvement of ([Nombre 004]) in the offense of money laundering, in addition to his responsibility for the crime of illegal drug trafficking. Regarding the defendant's statement and the exculpatory evidence, which according to the appellants was not taken into consideration, this Chamber observes that the a quo indicated: «Regarding [Nombre 029]. In the exercise of his material defense, he stated that he worked for [Nombre 001] but in tasks of transporting and caring for his children, caring for the home when [Nombre 001]'s older son was born, and also in everything related to mechanics. The court considers that indeed Mr. ([Nombre 004]) performed such tasks but in addition to that also carried out all the actions that the Public Prosecutor's Office attributed to him. Ms. Marilen Solórzano, in his representation, adhered to the Defective Procedural Activity filed by Mr. Mena Ayales, questions that materializations were carried out, that the search of the house of [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] found no drugs, criticizes that the vehicle with plates [Valor 075] was not seized, likewise questions the surveillance carried out on [Nombre 029]. All the arguments were already covered in the ruling» (cf. page 790 of the judgment). Despite the brevity of the reasoning, from this it is possible to infer that the trial court did not discard the defensive thesis, in the sense that the defendant worked for [Nombre 001], as it is one of the aspects that emerges from the evidence; however, what it did not agree with is that the link between [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 001] was limited to lawful activities. The evidence adduced, far from indicating [Nombre 029]'s ignorance of the criminal activities of the criminal organization in general and of [Nombre 001] in particular, places him in a fundamental role carrying out the transfer of drugs for delivery to third parties, receiving the corresponding payment, and then performing actions aimed at the conversion, transmission, and concealment of that capital, knowing its illicit origin. Under this logic, the lack of a more extensive analysis of the defendant's statement causes him no harm, because when the prosecution's thesis is accredited, the defensive one, in the extremes that are opposed, is untenable. Based on the considerations set forth, this Chamber considers that the defects claimed by the accused in the second, third, and fourth grounds of his appeal, as well as the third ground from the technical defense, are not present in the judgment; consequently, they are declared without merit. \n\n11. First ground of the appeal against the judgment filed by the co-defendant [Nombre 029]. It claims “Disagreement with the determination of the penalty.” The appellant points out that, even though the technical defense offered as evidence a report on the personal conditions of the accused that could have influenced the commission of the crime, prepared by the Department of Social Work and Psychology, the trial court did not mention it nor assign it any probative value. He argues that, as a consequence of this, all the elements provided for in numeral 71 of the Penal Code for the determination of the penalty were not considered and, furthermore, the duty to state reasons provided for in articles 142 and 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was violated. As a grievance, he maintains that a penalty was imposed on him in breach of what is established in article 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which renders it ineffective. He requests that the judgment be annulled with respect to the determination of the penalty and a retrial be ordered. Fourth ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández on behalf of [Nombre 029]. It claims “Lack of motivation regarding the quantum of the sanction set against [Nombre 029].”\n\nAlthough she does not formally raise it as a claim, in the introductory part of her brief, Máster Solórzano Hernández argues that the amount of the penalty established against her client lacks proportionality in relation to the degree of participation attributed to him in the facts. She therefore requests that, if the finding of guilt is confirmed, the penalty be reviewed in light of the evidentiary elements and the mitigating circumstances presented at trial (cf. f. 7454 vto.). By majority, the complaint is upheld. The penalty imposed on [Name 029] was based on two separate sections: at folio 984, the one relating to the crime of drug trafficking is recorded, and at folio 992, the one referring to money laundering. A penalty of 12 years in prison was imposed for each of these offenses; however, the intellectual basis, besides being extremely brief and not fully addressing all the topics described in numeral 71 of the Penal Code, is the same for both offenses. Although some arguments may coincide to support the quantum of the sanction for both crimes, because the personal conditions of the accused are the same, there are others such as, for example, the objective and subjective aspects of the punishable act, the importance of the harm or danger, as well as the circumstances of time, manner, and place, which are different for each illicit activity proven, which is why a particular analysis is necessary.\n\nAlthough this Chamber was able to differentiate throughout the ruling the intellectual bases specific to the crime of drug trafficking from those of the crime of money laundering for the determination of criminal liability of [Name 029], the truth is that an adequate delimitation of each of them was not made when specifying the sanction for each illicit act. In other sections of this ruling, it has been indicated that the greater the penalty imposed on an accused person, the greater the standard that must be demanded regarding the reasoning and specificity of the decision, to ensure the sentenced person's right to know the reasons justifying the reproach made against them; to facilitate the control of the decision, both at the judicial and social levels; and, mainly, to avoid arbitrariness in the use of punitive power. Because the reasoning expressed proved deficient and does not achieve these objectives, the appropriate course is to declare the nullity of the penalty imposed for both offenses and order a remand for a new trial so that a different panel of the Criminal Court of the Specialized Jurisdiction against Organized Crime may substantiate it adequately. Based on the foregoing, by majority, the fourth ground of the technical defense and the first ground of the material defense are upheld; consequently, a remand for a new trial is ordered for the new substantiation of the penalty to be imposed for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering, at which time the principle of no reform in detriment (non reformatio in peius) operating in favor of [Name 029] must be respected. Judge Escalante Quirós issues a dissenting vote.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With profound respect, I depart from the decision of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare the first ground of the appeal filed by the accused [Name 029], as well as the fourth ground of the appeal filed by his technical defense, without merit. Contrary to what the appellants affirm, whose main arguments were accepted by the majority vote, I consider that the *a quo* court did adequately state the reasons for the two prison sentences imposed on ([Name 004]). This person was convicted of a drug trafficking offense and also for an illicit act of money laundering, committed in the context of his participation, as a co-perpetrator, within a very well-structured criminal organization with a very stable survival over time. Thus, from my point of view, it is reasonable that there are similarities in the reasoning of the reproach for both offenses, since the two crimes had as a common factor the existence of the same criminal network, but were also committed according to the special position held by ([Name 004]) within it. Therefore, in my judgment, it is not an error of the sentence that, when sizing the degree of culpability of the accused for both crimes, the characteristics of his location in the hierarchy of the criminal organization were weighed, as well as the logistical environment from which he acted, since it is reasonable that when setting the sanction for the two illicit acts committed by [Name 029], the court valued the physical and personal assets that, as a member of the criminal structure, were certainly the same ones used to commit both crimes. Upon reviewing the decision, specifically starting at folio 984 of the sentence, it can be determined that, regarding the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking, the decision-making body made it clear that ([Name 004]) acted in excess with respect to the elements of the criminal type, which reflects that, by making that higher degree of culpability visible, the sanction should also be higher, which I deem correct since the penalty must be just and proportional, as the trial court well determined. Thus, the main arguments of reproach recorded in the decision were the following: \"…*participates in a large number of events related to drug trafficking, given that his functions included the transport and delivery of drug shipments to other criminal organizations, meaning he had a vital function for the extension of the criminal organization's operation, which is extremely reprehensible. Like the other members, he is reproached for the number of people in the organization of which he was a part and its operation for at least 30 months. It is highly reproached that [Name 029] used his home as a storage point for money that was the product of drug trafficking, taking advantage of the privacy that a dwelling implies, in turn, the fact of having involved his romantic partner [Name 026] in the commission of the crime is extremely reprehensible. It is reiterated that his participation in the criminal organization led by [Name 001] was not that of just any member, but that of a trusted person of the leader to the point of being the person who carried out the transport of Mr. [Name 001]'s children…\"* (cf. sentence, folios 984 and 985; the bolded emphasis is not part of the original). As can be seen, the court reproached ([Name 004]) for being part of the criminal organization in the sale of drugs to third-party consumers, and also for having an essential task for the network to expand, explaining that this was because [Name 029] transported and delivered drugs to supply other criminal groups. Likewise, the sentence explained the higher degree of culpability by pointing out that the crime against public health was committed by ([Name 004]) in the context of a large-scale criminal organization, which the *a quo* deduced from the number of its members and the long period of time it had been operating. Without a doubt, it is not the same to be part of a small criminal network with little time in existence, in which functions of lesser relevance to the legal interest are exercised, as it is to do so as [Name 029] in the context of a gang of many members, which had already subsisted for several years, executing essential functions of greater reproach in view, precisely, of the legal interest. Along the same lines, the court illustrates the greater reproach of his conduct by pointing out that ([Name 004]) used his own home to store the money obtained by the organization from drug trafficking, as well as having also involved, as a co-perpetrator, his romantic partner and his brother. Finally, the jurisdictional body highlighted that the high penalty imposed on [Name 029] also responded to the fact that he was a member very close to the top of the pyramidal structure of the organization, as he had the trust of the leader not only for the illicit acts already mentioned but even for the transport of his children. This being the case, I consider that the reasoning of the penalty was correct, since the court's arguments comply with the parameters of Article 71 of the Penal Code, and it was an exercise in sizing the degree of culpability, which contextualized the special position of [Name 029] in the hierarchy of the criminal network, his role of trust and closeness to the boss not only in criminal matters but also in personal ones, as well as the essentiality of his labors in drug trafficking, which was linked to a greater danger to the legal interest. On the other hand, the reasoning for the conviction for the crime of money laundering is likewise in accordance with the law, from my point of view. Starting at folio 992, the *a quo* detailed the penalty corresponding to [Name 029] for that other crime, and it is important to underline what I indicated before, in the sense that both crimes were committed by ([Name 004]) based on the same criminal structure, his same location very close to the hierarchy of the criminal pyramid, and using the same resources. Therefore, I do not consider it a defect of the sentence to have used a large part of the same argumentation when justifying the two penalties imposed on the accused. If it was proven in the sentence that [Name 029] had the trust of the leader of the criminal enterprise, not only in aspects linked to the drug business but even in personal matters, and that he had a very relevant position in the context of a structure composed of many people that had also existed for a long time, those are common factors for the reproach regarding the two crimes that, in the environment of that criminal participation, ([Name 004]) committed. In the same sense, if the greater culpability of [Name 029] was inferred from his essential contribution to the functioning and expansion of the criminal network regarding drug trafficking, that same factor can be validly considered when reproaching him for the laundering of capital from drug activity. Thus, in my judgment, the penalty for this latter crime is also in accordance with legal duties of reasoning, when the court stated that the defendant, as occurred with drug trafficking, exceeded the minimum legal reproach, because: \"…*participates in a large number of events related to money loans and the collection of interest, money changing, money storage, meaning he had a vital function for the extension of the criminal organization's operation, which is extremely reprehensible. Like the other members, he is reproached for the number of people in the organization of which he was a part and its operation for at least 30 months. It is highly reproached that [Name 029] used his home as a storage point for money that was the product of drug trafficking, taking advantage of the privacy that a dwelling implies, in turn, the fact of having involved his romantic partner [Name 026] in the commission of the crime of money laundering, when recruiting a large number of people to make bank deposits and change money, is extremely reprehensible. It is reiterated that his participation in the criminal organization led by [Name 001] was not that of just any member, but that of a trusted person of the leader to the point of being the person who carried out the transport of Mr. [Name 001]'s children…\"* (cf. sentence, folio 992; the bolded emphasis is not part of the original). As can be noted, the basis for the penalty for the crime of money laundering is similar, but not identical, to that used by the court regarding the judgment of reproach for drug trafficking. As indicated, the aspects common to both offenses were again used to state the reasons for the sanction, but this is reasonable because they are two crimes committed in the same criminal reality, the relevant point being that the court did clearly differentiate between the participation of [Name 029] in drug trafficking, with respect to his contributions to money laundering. Therefore, I depart from the criterion of the majority of this appellate chamber and declare the cited grounds of both appeals without merit.-\n\n**Second ground of the appeal filed by the co-accused [Name 026].** Alleges \"*Disagreement with the evaluation of the evidence*\".\n\nThe appellant argues that the condemnatory sentence issued against her failed to observe the guiding principles of circumstantial evidence: 1) An unknown fact cannot be inferred from another unknown fact; 2) Unity of the indicating fact with respect to the indication; 3) Gravity, precision, and concordance of the indications. She indicates that the exclusive basis for her conviction for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) consists of intercepted calls targeting her, but the data obtained from these are absolutely amphibological. She argues that a simple review of the telephone sequences allows one to verify that they speak of \"baby,\" \"babys,\" \"that thing\" (aquello), and \"thing\" (coso), which in no way could be considered grave and precise indications; rather, the judicial police performed an \"extensive\" interpretation of said terms in order to convict her. She alleges that no materialization of the objective data was carried out to confirm the police presumption; instead, \"*the judicial police simply listened to conversations and did not exercise any method that would allow corroborating the truthfulness of what was being discussed on the phone, leaving the indication destined to be taken at most as a supposition*\" (cf. f. 7344 front). Regarding the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), she argues that it was not possible to provide the files or receipts from the financial institutions where the payments or currency exchanges were made. By virtue of the foregoing, she points out that it cannot be ruled out that these were fantastical or ambiguous conversations. She refers, as a grievance, that she was convicted using amphibological indications, thus violating her right to evidentiary sufficiency. She requests the nullity of the sentence and the remand for a new trial. First ground for challenge filed by Master Marilén Solórzano Hernández, private defense attorney for [Name 026]. She claims \"*Disagreement with the evaluation of the evidence*.\"\n\nThe technical defense maintains that, contrary to what is established by articles 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 39 and 41 of the Political Constitution; as well as articles 6 (principle of legality and due process), 9 (presumption of innocence), 146 (burden of proof), 175 (evaluation of evidence), 184 (integral analysis of the evidence), 363 (illicit evidence and nullity), and 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), in this matter the evidence was not analyzed in an objective, integral, and reasonable manner. As a first aspect, she argues that there is no direct evidence (documentary or testimonial) that unequivocally points to the responsibility of [Name 026] in the acts attributed to her, such as, for example, \"*testimonies of people who have observed the transactions, bank records directly linked to her, or material evidence such as the seizure of money*\" (cf. f. 7474 front). As a second point, she refers, regarding the administration of the money, that although specific amounts are mentioned, the evidence presented does not establish that the money was effectively the product of illicit activity and also does not clearly indicate that the defendant was responsible for the custody and administration of said sums. Finally, she notes that there are errors in the interpretation of the testimony of the co-defendants, who are given a leading role, but without the existence of \"*additional material evidence that can directly link my client to the criminal activities of the criminal organization*\" (ibid.). She explains that it was not sufficiently demonstrated that the records of money and goods mentioned were directly linked to [Name 026]. She indicates, as a grievance, that the proven facts were evaluated in a fragmented manner and that the prosecution and defense evidence was not correctly analyzed, which resulted in an erroneous conviction. The appellant requests that her client be acquitted for lack of reliable evidence to demonstrate her participation in the acts, and subsidiarily, that the case be remanded for a new proceeding. She also requires that the precautionary measure of pretrial detention be set aside, \"*given that there is no risk of flight or danger to public safety*\" (cf. 7475 front).\n\n**The complaints must be dismissed**. The manner in which the *a quo* court considered the actions of custody, accounting, and conversion into foreign currency of money from drug trafficking, attributed to both [Name 026] and her husband, to have been accredited, was extensively analyzed in considering X of the present ruling, when reviewing the second, third, and fourth grounds of the appeal filed by [Name 029] and the third ground managed on her behalf by the private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández, specifically in section B), titled \"*Custody, Administration and Conversion into Foreign Currency of Money Derived from Drug Trafficking*,\" for which reason, in order to avoid unnecessary reiterations, reference is made to what was decided therein. As stated in said considering, this Chamber finds that the evidentiary evaluation carried out by the trial court was adequate, by establishing that, in effect, [Name 029] and [Name 026], jointly collected and administered in their home, money from drug trafficking, which they inserted into the national banking system through currency exchange, for the subsequent acquisition of high-value goods by other members of the criminal group, for which reason the specific complaints raised by the technical and material defense, which will be referred to below, have no basis. Contrary to what was affirmed by the appellants, this Chamber finds that the sentence does not contain errors in the evaluation of the evidence that must be declared in this instance. The challengers seem to understand that the absence of direct evidence prevented deriving criminal responsibility against the defendant [Name 026]; however, they omit to consider that our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence, provided for in article 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), according to which \"*Facts and circumstances of interest for the correct solution of the case may be proven by any permitted means of evidence, except for express legal prohibition*.\" In this case, the accreditation of the defendant's responsibility was carried out based on circumstantial evidence, which was evaluated jointly and concatenated, leading to a single possible conclusion, which was the defendant's responsibility in the money laundering (legitimación de capitales) of proceeds from drug trafficking that was charged to her. It was not by chance that the *a quo* court analyzed the criminal responsibility of the indicted [Name 026] and her husband [Name 029] jointly, since the evidence establishes that they are a married couple who took part in an organization dedicated to drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales). The trial court validly considered it established that [Name 029] carried out actions typical of drug transportation, by mandate of [Name 001] — see considering X of this resolution — . This is the starting point in the analysis of the criminal responsibility of [Name 026], because she was aware of said activity, and her will and knowledge regarding the role assumed by her in the concealment, storage, and currency exchange of money obtained from drug trafficking was also accredited, which is derived not only from the telephone interceptions — see in this sense sequence 0037100, from the intercepted line [Value 064], at 00:48 hours on December 7, 2018 — , but also because she herself accompanied the defendant to make a drug delivery on December 28, 2018, in the Tirrases sector of Curridabat, to the organization investigated in case file 18-000017-1219-PE — as related by the judicial investigators and confirmed with sequence 0029513, from line [Value 064], at 20:51 hours on December 30, 2018 — . That knowledge is evidenced in a very particular way, when ([Name 004]) commented by telephone to another person, about the fear his wife had felt, due to the police surveillance they faced on that occasion. As already noted, it is clear from the telephone interceptions that [Name 026] had knowledge that her husband was the person in charge of receiving money as payment for the trafficked drug — sequence 0037100 — . Furthermore, the sentence states, based on the statement of the judicial investigators and the content of the telephone interceptions, the price per kilo of cocaine that was trafficked by the organization was around ₡ 5,100,000, so the significant amounts of cash that were collected and administered by the defendants [Name 026] and [Name 029] made sense — ₡ 7,289,000, ₡ 4,600,000 and ₡ 9,490,000 — . Now, to consider it accredited that the defendants had custody of those amounts of money, it is true that the principal reliance was on the content of the telephone interceptions — sequences 0001622, at 16:34 hours on December 6, 2018; 0013990, at 21:12 hours on December 21, 2018 and 0029642 at 00:31 hours on December 31, 2018 — , but as already indicated, their content is clear and explicit, so it is not necessary to resort to external interpretations or corroborations to apprehend their content. The same occurs with the communications in which [Name 026] and her husband coordinated with third parties for currency exchange at different banking entities in the capital — sequences 0010354, 0010421, 0039634, 0045996, 0046048, 0046092, 0046235, 0046263, 0051493, 0056119, 0058788, 0062004, 0062186, 0063280 and 0200128 — . If to all this information we add that one of the persons with whom the currency exchange was coordinated was [Name 022], alias \"[Name 123],\" at whose domicile $10,000 in cash were seized; that high economic value goods were located in the possession of the organization, some in use and enjoyment of [Name 001], leader of the criminal organization, and that [Name 029] and [Name 026] lack lawful remunerative activities that justify the handling of such important sums of money, the only reasonable conclusion is that the large amounts of money they possessed and administered came from the activity of drug trafficking. We see that, contrary to what was stated by the appellants, the existing indications are indeed grave, precise, concordant, and lead to a single conclusion, which has already been developed. To arrive at alternative conclusions, the only way would be to fragment the evidence and value each indication independently, which is not feasible in a system that promotes sound judicial discretion. Regarding the absence of files or receipts from financial entities proving the currency exchange, it in no way detracts from the conclusions reached by the *a quo* court. Weighted evidence is not admissible in our procedural system, so the absence of specific elements of proof does not impede the accreditation of a fact, if other lawful elements exist that reveal it. The appellants seem to understand that the lack of bank receipts for each of the deposits made leaves the thesis subsisting that the custody of money, the banking movements, and currency exchange discussed by [Name 026], could be fantastical or imaginary. However, it is this conjecture that is subjective and unfounded, because what is logical and reasonable is that a criminal organization involves itself in drug trafficking, precisely to obtain substantial profits, it being unsustainable, rather, that such returns are \"imaginary\"; this latter thesis that, in any case, was refuted by the seizure of high sums of money at the homes of [Name 015] and her children [Name 022] and [Name 013]; of [Name 016] and [Name 001] himself. Finally, errors are claimed in the evaluation of the statements of the indicted persons, which is stated generically, because it is not established concretely what they consist of.\n\nOf interest regarding the legal situation of [Nombre 026], the statement of her husband [Nombre 029] is noted, who declared that he was an employee of [Nombre 001] in various lawful activities, such as transporting people. However, his statement, in light of the prosecution's evidence, completely collapses, because it was proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that in addition to those activities, he also transported drugs. It is the origin of the money in this illicit activity that explains the precautions taken to avoid being discovered by the police, the care taken in how they spoke on the telephone, as well as hiding and \"diluting\" cash movements, through front persons (testaferros), currency exchanges, and deposits from third parties recruited by the organization. Hence, it is possible to deduce that the money managed by [Nombre 029] together with [Nombre 026] had its origin in drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). Based on the circumstances set forth, since the defects alleged by the appellants in the analysis of the evidence are not detected, the complaints are declared without merit (sin lugar).\n\n**XIII. First ground of the appeal of the judgment (recurso de apelación de sentencia) filed personally by the co-defendant [Nombre 026].** She claims \"Disagreement with the determination of the facts (Inconformidad con la determinación de los hechos)\". She alleges that the principle *non bis in idem*, provided for in article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), prevents a person from being tried twice for the same facts or what, in her opinion, is the same thing, \"the same facts cannot serve as a basis to support a conviction for two different crimes\" (f. 7341 vto.). She cites in her support the judgment Loayza Tamayo vs. Perú, issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos). She argues that, in the specific case, based on the accreditation of facts 4 to 4.5 of the accusatory instrument, [Nombre 026] and ([Nombre 004]) were convicted for the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas), by being held responsible for recruiting people to make deposits of money proceeds from the trafficking of illicit substances, in addition to performing functions in the purchase and exchange of currency. She indicates that the evidentiary support for said conviction was the information obtained from the interception of the following sequences of telephone calls: 1) 0010354; 2) 0010427; 3) 0039634; 4) 0045996; 5) 0046048. She points out that, based on the same facts, evidence, and intellectual reasoning, the lower court (a quo) also proceeded to convict her for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Specifically, she refers—for this second crime—to the telephone sequences: 1) 0010427; 2) 0039634; 3) 0045996; 4) 0046048; 5) 0046092. She states that there is no basis whatsoever to separate the facts and evidence on the basis of which she was convicted for the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas) and those that served as the basis for the conviction for money laundering (legitimación de capitales), which caused her grievance by violating due process (debido proceso). She requests that the conviction handed down against her be declared null and void and that the matter be remitted for trial (juicio) for a single crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). **Second ground of the appeal of the judgment (recurso de apelación de sentencia) filed by licensed attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández on behalf of [Nombre 026].** She claims \"Disagreement due to the existence of double prosecution for the same facts (Inconformidad por la existencia de doble imputación por los mismos hechos)\". The legal counsel argues that [Nombre 026] was charged with various conducts that constitute a single crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Despite this, the lower court (a quo) contravened the principle *non bis in ídem*, provided for in Article 34 of the Penal Code (Código Penal), because a double penalty was imposed for the single conduct attributed to [Nombre 026], since, based on the same facts constituting money laundering, which consist of recruiting third persons to make deposits and to safeguard money, the defendant was also convicted of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). She argues that, by dividing said activities into \"different charges related to the same crime\" (f. 7476 fte.), the court erred in interpreting and excessively fragmenting the factual picture, because from her perspective the activities attributed to [Nombre 026] and ([Nombre 004]), must be understood as a global action of money laundering. She indicates that the calls with sequence 010354, 0010427, 0039634, 0045996, 0046048, were used to support, under the same reasoning, both the conviction for drug trafficking and the conviction for money laundering (legitimación de capitales). She points out as normative support for her claim, Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos), 39 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and 34 of the Penal Code (Código Penal). She adds that \"in various rulings, our Court has stressed that the filing of multiple charges based on the same facts without a proper distinction between procedural acts is inappropriate and goes against the guarantees of the defense\" (f. 7476 vto.). She raises as a grievance that the double prosecution for the same facts produced a breach of the *non bis in idem* principle, such that her client was \"convicted for conducts that in reality constitute a single infraction, resulting in a double penalty reaching twenty years of imprisonment and affecting her right to due process and defense\" (cfr. f. 7477 fte.). She requests, based on the foregoing, that the appealed verdict be revoked, that [Nombre 026] be acquitted of the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas) and that \"her responsibility be assessed only in accordance with the correct classification\" (f. 7477 fte.), which in her opinion consists of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Concomitantly, she requests that \"the precautionary measure of pretrial detention be lifted while another trial takes place\" (f. 7477 vto.). **For the reasons that will be stated, the claim is declared without merit (sin lugar)** (drafted by Judge Renauld Castro). To respond to the complaint, it is necessary to outline the proven factual picture linking the defendant [Nombre 026] and which coincides with the accusation: *\"1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas), which centered its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for storing, distributing, and selling drugs, as well as for receiving money proceeds from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: The storage and dosage of the drug caches acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including supplying the caches to the various points of sale.*\n\nThe commercialization of drug shipments belonging to the criminal group to other narco bands based in the national territory. The commercialization of drug shipments belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug-dependent individuals, through the properties held by the organization for this purpose, of the “Bunkers” type, as well as on public roads in the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, using various means to that end. 3. This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal fashion, so each of its members carried out specific functions, all in a single direction, the commercialization of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows: […] **[Name 026]**: member of the organization, who among other functions was tasked with assisting the accused ([Name 004]), in the collection and storage of money derived from the distribution and sale of drugs carried out by the criminal organization; moreover, he recruited third parties outside the narco band to make systematic deposits to the accounts used by the organization for the purpose of inserting the money from the illicit activity into the national financial system and facilitating the enjoyment and investment of those profits by the members of the criminal structure […] 4. During the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2019, the criminal organization formed by the accused carried out a series of criminal actions in pursuit of the ultimate goal of the organization, which is drug trafficking, among which the following stand out: 4.1 As part of the operational model used by the Criminal Organization, the accused [Name 001], designated the accused [Name 029], for the purpose of making deliveries of narcotic substances to other criminal organizations, rooted in the central valley, for which they used a Mitsubishi brand vehicle, Montero style, license plate [Value 075], which had compartments specially designed for the transport of shipments of narcotics, likewise it was delegated to the accused [Name 026] and ([Name 004]), the administration of the money derived from drug trafficking. 4.2 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 6, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the residence located at [...], an approximate amount of 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. 4.3 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 21, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the residence located at [...], an approximate amount of 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. 4.4 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 31, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the residence located at [...], an approximate amount of 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. 4.5 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, during the period of 2018 until the month of October 2020, the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], were in charge of the function of recruiting third parties, who were charged with making deposits of money derived from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as carrying out the functions of currency exchange and purchase, this with the purpose of introducing the money derived from drug trafficking into the national banking system […] 5.\n\nDuring the investigation period from April 2018 through October 2020, the Criminal Organization composed of the investigated individuals [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016], [Name 019], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, and transfer assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or the ownership thereof, knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity carried out and led by the accused [Name 001]. [...] 6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, search, registration, and seizure (allanamiento, registro y secuestro) proceedings were conducted at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, resulting in the arrest of the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts, as set forth below [...] 6.8 Regarding the outcome of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings conducted at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], the following result was obtained and corresponds to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking:\n\n• A black and pink notebook with the legend \"Femme,\" bearing the brand in the upper right-hand corner \"El líder,\" with a total of ninety-eight (98) folios containing annotations of various accounts.\n• A gray Huawei brand cellular phone, model Huawei MLAL02, with no visible IMEI.\n• A black Nokia brand cellular phone with IMEI number 352905101877359, with a Movistar brand SIM card bearing the number 8950604001911308753F.\n• A total amount of cash in the sum of ₡323,000.00 colones (Three Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand Colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused.\n• A receipt for money to third parties from the Ministry of Justice and Peace, CAI Vilma Curling Rivera, indicating receipt by [Name 029], with an adhesive slip bearing the name [Name 155].\n• An Apple brand cellular phone, pink iPhone model, IMEI 355734070780270, with a SIM card without a visible brand bearing the number 8950604302807581416; in addition, a black Samsung brand cellular phone was collected with IMEI 355286105100636, IMEI #2 355286105100644, with a Movistar SIM card bearing the number 8950604001907110389F, with a 4GB Adata brand micro SD memory card.\n• A black Huawei brand cellular phone, IMEI 866368040451035, with a Claro brand SIM card bearing the number 3950603018885857562F, with a 4GB Adata brand micro SD memory card.\" [sic] (cf. pp. 276 to 313 of the judgment. Emphasis supplied). Based on the factual background transcribed above, [Name 026] was found to be the responsible perpetrator of the offenses of aggravated drug trafficking (cf. p. 896 of the judgment) and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) (cf. p. 913 of the judgment), which led to the imposition of 10 years of imprisonment for each offense (cf. pp. 988 and 933 of the judgment), for a total of 20 years of imprisonment. Now, regarding the specific conduct that the Prosecution formally attributed to [Name 026], this Chamber differs in finding that the deposit of money into third-party accounts was proven, as explained in Considerando X of this resolution, to which reference is made. However, as will be analyzed below, even discarding the specific action mentioned above, the necessary requirements for conviction on both offenses are met, since it was indeed proven that [Name 026] carried out the following charged conduct: (i) collection, storage, and administration of money from drug trafficking at her residence; (ii) recruitment of third parties to insert money from the illicit activity into the national financial system through currency exchange. It was also held as true that the defendant carried out both actions within the framework of a prior agreement with the remaining members of the criminal organization.\n\nIn this vein, the event that occurred on December 28, 2018, in summary case 18-0000171219-PE, referred to as “Caso El Bueno,” whose certified copy was introduced as evidence in this matter, makes it possible to establish the full knowledge that the defendant [Name 026] had regarding the drug transport and delivery activity carried out by her cohabitant, [Name 029], to the criminal organization led by [Name 099], alias “[Name 109],” in the Tirrases de Curridabat sector, acting in effect as a member of the criminal group led by [Name 001]. Certainly, participation in said activity, specifically the transport of psychotropic substances, could not be attributed to [Name 026], as it was not charged against her, but it does allow for the evidentiary strengthening of her knowledge regarding the origin of the monies her romantic partner received, so that she would conceal them in the common dwelling. Regarding the will of [Name 026] to actively participate in the illegal drug trade, through the two specific functions indicated above (storage of money and recruitment of persons for its exchange into foreign currency), the trial judges reasoned: “Having more than clear the operational dynamics in that given time period, where it was also determined that [Name 029] and [Name 026], who were also a couple, performed functions designated by [Name 001], with respect to the accounting and administration of money derived from Drug trafficking, given that on December 6, 2018, they held in their custody, disposal, and storage, at the dwelling located in [...], an approximate sum of 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and was intended to be introduced into the national financial system […] It was also credited that as part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], with respect to the accounting and administration of money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 21, 2018, they held in their custody, disposal, and storage, at the dwelling located in [...], an approximate sum of 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and was intended to be introduced into the national financial system […] Continuing with the same line of reasoning, it was proven that as part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], with respect to the accounting and administration of money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 31, 2018, they held in their custody, disposal, and storage, at the dwelling located in [...], an approximate sum of 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and was intended to be introduced into the national financial system […] note that it is clear that when discussing monies between the two of them, generally [Name 029] is away from his home and it is [Name 026] who must check the sums of money, it being clear then that [Name 026] is at those moments at the home where they reside, being this: [...], precisely their common one, as was set forth in the raid request IP-138-EN-20 folio 5, a domicile that was, by the way, confirmed at the time of carrying out the raids in October 2020.\n\nNow, regarding the sums of money mentioned in the calls and that form part of the facts taken as proven, namely approximately 7,289,000 colones (06 December 2018), approximately 4,600,000 colones (21 December 2018), and approximately 9,490,000 colones (31 December 2018), it is evidently extracted from the conversations that this is cash kept in the house of both and stored in different bags, amounts that are in turn known to [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], but beyond that, it must be kept in mind that it is clear, according to the temporal space of preparation of the police report IP-033-EN-19, that [Nombre 029], as a member of the organization led by [Nombre 001], was dedicated to the trade of what he called \"babies, babys\", to refer to the drug packages he transported to other organizations in the vehicle with license plate [Valor 075], and given that the functioning of the organization was determined from at least the month of April of the year 2018, the three previously referenced events are fully accredited within the accused temporal framework […] Subsequently to the 3 events analyzed above, it is taken as proven that as part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, in the period from the month of January of the year 2019 until the month of October of the year 2020, the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029], were in charge of the function of recruiting third parties, who were responsible for making deposits of money from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as performing the functions inherent to currency exchange and purchase, with the purpose of incorporating the money from drug trafficking into the national banking system […] taking into account the facts taken as proven against [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], delegates thus designated by the leader [Nombre 001] and that occurred on 06 December, 21 December, and 31 December, all of the year 2018, in the criminal actions the global phenomenon of the crime of drug trafficking in its modalities at the national level (street-level dealing, micro-trafficking) can be understood, from which experience has instructed us in the complexity and totality of the scope of this illicit act, given that one of the pillars in the continuous action of these criminal groups and therefore their utmost motivation derives from the acquisitive power and the immense monetary gains that have as their genesis the trafficking of prohibited substances, gains that, having their origin from a punishable act, they must attempt to legitimize and introduce into our national economic and financial system, the previous communications reflecting a clear example of this affirmation, evidencing the distinct tasks performed by [Nombre 029] alias [Nombre 083] using his telephone number [Valor 077] and in the case of [Nombre 026] using the telephone service [Valor 090], both telephone services duly accredited to each of them as analyzed in the three prior events; thus then the functions of both in the recruitment of persons to make bank deposits, currency exchange and/or purchase are clearly understood, the female being in charge on different occasions of finding people or \"front persons\" (prestanombres) whose sole purpose is to make bank deposits of high amounts of money in a fragmented manner and thereby avoid any alert issued by any banking entity and thus avoid any trace of the banking activity, it is for this reason that it is more than accredited that they carried out actions to convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as conceal the true nature, the origin, knowing that the money stored by them, originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Nombre 001] […] Finally, and by way of closing, it has clearly been demonstrated that [Nombre 029] was the person designated by [Nombre 001] for the delivery of the drug caches that were being commercialized at that moment, since in a telephone call [Nombre 029] makes reference to [Nombre 026] that she told the “[Nombre 136]” that people already had the money for the babies, which evidently means that the drug was not given away, but rather money was received in exchange for it, a circumstance that in turn allows one to infer that Mr. [Nombre 001] also delegated the administration and custody of said money to [Nombre 029] and his domestic partner [Nombre 026], custody and administration that was carried out from the dwelling of both, one must not forget the constant calls between them, making reference to the counting of the money from the babies or half babies, to specific amounts and also as part of its administration they recruited people to make bank deposits and currency exchange, without forgetting that regarding [Nombre 026] in the call with sequence 0014218, [Nombre 026] says to [Nombre 152]: “let him come by the boss's place”, and [Nombre 152] says: “by [Nombre 153]'s place?”, [Nombre 026] agrees, and in turn tells him it is to give him some money. We see then how for [Nombre 026] the figure of alias “[Nombre 153]” is referring to the boss, which is the same as saying chief, undoubtedly referring to alias “[Nombre 084]” who is obviously [Nombre 001], for this reason it is totally understandable that [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] acted fulfilling the functions that were evidently designated and delegated to them by [Nombre 001]» [sic] (cfr. fs. 394 to 409 of the sentence. Underlining does not correspond to the original). In accordance with the above, it is important to establish that, at the level of accusation and the existing evidentiary support, it has been possible to accredit that both the storage, accounting and safeguarding of money proceeding from the illicit drug trade, as well as the recruitment of persons to exchange said money for dollars and by that means achieve its introduction into the national financial system for its full enjoyment by the organization, are functions that the accused developed by means of prior agreement and by express delegation from [Nombre 001].\n\nThus, [Name 074] was not only aware of the drug trafficking (narcotráfico) activity carried out by the group, but also wished to join it, assuming the role corresponding to her, according to the agreed division of functions. At this point, it is important to recall that the starting point for determining whether the contribution made by a person within the framework of a crime committed jointly with others constitutes co-perpetration (coautoría) or another form of participation is the essentiality of the contribution. Thus, the theory of functional dominion of the act postulates that one who has functional dominion (and, therefore, is a co-perpetrator) is \"whoever controls certain essential portions of the execution of the crime\" (De Vicente Martínez, Rosario: \"Types of Perpetration and Types of Participation\". In: Demetrio Crespo (coord.): Criminal Law Lessons, Volume II. Editorial Jurídica Continental, San José, 2016, p. 299). In this matter, as already indicated, it was alleged that [Name 026] assumed functions of collecting and safeguarding the money obtained from the illicit trade of narcotics in her dwelling house, while also undertaking the recruitment of front persons (testaferros) to participate in changing said money from colones to dollars and thus inserting the funds into the national banking system. Thus, although it might be thought that the role assumed by [Name 026] is located in the exhaustion phase or final link of the illicit activity of violating the Psychotropic Substances Law, we are facing a crime composed of a succession of acts of possession, transfer, and sale of illicit substances in which [Name 074] actively and repeatedly took part, performing the function she assumed within the organization, to the point that the trial court identified several occasions in which, ([Name 004]), in association with [Name 026], safeguarded the money obtained from the drug transactions carried out by the former. Regarding the importance of the role in question, its essentiality for the drug trafficking activity is undeniable, since obtaining profits is the raison d'être and ultimate goal of the organization, besides the fact that it was proven (accused and proven facts number 5) that part of the funds obtained from that illicit trade was used for: 1) the purchase of vehicles that were placed at the service of the organization, for drug transfers and the security devices related to said activity and the protection of the leader, [Name 001]; 2) the construction of the dwelling in León XIII, which functioned as the group's operations center. It is concluded, from all the foregoing, that the function of storing and safeguarding the profits obtained from the sale of drugs assumed by [Name 026] places her as a co-perpetrator of the crime provided for in numeral 58 of Law No. 8204 of December 26, 2001. Now then, it cannot be overlooked that the concealment or safeguarding of drug trafficking monies and the recruitment of third persons to function as front persons for exchanging the money into dollars with a view to its subsequent introduction into the banking system also form part of the typical description of the figure of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), provided for in numeral 69 of Law No. 8204: \"Shall be punished with a prison sentence of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts, or transfers assets of economic interest, knowing that they originate from a crime that, within its penalty range, can be punished with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to conceal or disguise the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever conceals or disguises the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement, or rights over the assets or their ownership, knowing that they come, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its penalty range can be punished with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more. The penalty shall be ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, when the assets of economic interest originate from any of the crimes related to the illicit traffic of narcotics, psychotropic substances, money laundering, diversion of precursors, essential chemical substances, and related crimes, conducts classified as terrorist, in accordance with current legislation or when the purpose is the financing of acts of terrorism and terrorist organizations.\" The concealment by [Name 074] of assets she knew came from drug trafficking, as well as her role in the transformation phase, through the recruitment of persons to undertake the currency exchange and subsequent deposit of said funds, also place her as a co-perpetrator of the crime of money laundering. Now then, the coexistence of the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering, when the active subject of the second crime is also a co-perpetrator of the preceding crime —a phenomenon more synthetically referred to as self-laundering (autolavado)— is a topic widely debated in doctrine and jurisprudence. In that order of ideas, there are doctrinal positions indicating that the penalization of self-laundering for the active subject of the preceding crime constitutes an infringement of the principle of non bis in idem, insofar as the judgment of reproach for the first illicit act already includes the acts of concealment, use, or conversion of the assets or money obtained through its commission. Regarding this discussion —which is unavoidable in view of the object of the claim herein— it has been indicated: \"An important sector of doctrine has defended double incrimination using as the main argument the diversity of the legal interests affected: that which is attacked by the principal infraction and the socio-economic order as the object of protection of the post-criminal conduct. A different conclusion must be reached, however, if one admits that laundering presents a concealing nature and, consequently, considers the attack that these acts imply for the proper functioning of the Administration of Justice. Halfway between both positions are those who generally admit the punishment of self-laundering, but point out some exceptions depending on the performance of certain commission modalities\" (Vidales Rodríguez, Caty (Coord.): The Crime of Money Laundering, San José, Editorial Jurídica Continental, 2021, pp. 48-49). Based on the distinction between the disvalue of the conduct and the legal interests protected in the crime of illegal drug trafficking and their correlates in the crime of money laundering, but also due to the existence of a typical requirement that differentiates the illicit act of concealment from the figure of money laundering, Dr. Francisco Castillo assumed the thesis of the coexistence of responsibility for money laundering and for the preceding crime, in the same person. In this regard, he explained: \"The criminal types in Article 69, subsections a) and b) of the Psychotropic Substances Law do not limit the circle of perpetrators to specific persons. In this, these criminal types differ from the criminal types provided for in Articles 322, 323, 324, and 325 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, we cannot say that in the crime of money laundering the solution provided by the legislator for concealment applies, of excluding as perpetrator of this crime whoever is the perpetrator or participant of the prior act. An exception to these principles is the conduct provided for in Article 69, subsection a) of the Psychotropic Substances Law of helping the person who has participated in the other prior crimes to evade the legal consequences of their acts and the case of asset laundering provided for in Article 47 of the Anti-Corruption Law […] We believe that the thesis of the impunity of acts of perpetration and participation in the crime of money laundering for having been the perpetrator or participant of the prior crime has no de lege lata application in Article 69, subsections a) and b) of the Psychotropic Substances Law, whether the matter is viewed from the perspective of perpetration or co-perpetration or from participation (instigation and complicity). The foregoing with the exception of acts aimed at concealing another's participation in the prior crime, provided for in Article 69, subsection a) of the Psychotropic Substances Law […] As we have already said, in the criminal types of Article 69, subsections a) and b) of the Psychotropic Substances Law, in addition to the legal interest of the Administration of Justice, the collective interest of the non-contamination of the legal economic and financial system with objects of economic interest coming from crimes that can be punished with imprisonment of four years or more or from any of the crimes provided for in the Narcotics Law is protected […] No logical reason is seen for not punishing the perpetrator (or participant) of the prior act who carries out the money laundering act to self-benefit, since there is no total coincidence between the legal interests violated by the prior act and by the laundering crime\" (Castillo González, Francisco. The crime of money laundering. Editorial Jurídica Continental, San José, 2012, pp. 76-79). Thus, the renowned national jurist joins the majority position assumed by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling No. 2016-808 of 9:58 a.m. on August 5, 2016: \"Not all those constitutive acts of a criminal concatenation are punishable solely by their principal or central act. Although such situations are frequently known empirically, that does not mean it is always so. The difference is marked when some of the other prior or subsequent activities are themselves provided for as a crime or are typified (in observance of the principle of legality) and cause their own harm, which is not disvalued in the principal or central act (principle of harm). […] So that, in summary, if in the present matter of money laundering charged to Messrs. U.R.\n\nand A.G., there is (a) a typified conduct apart from the international drug trafficking for which they were convicted and (b) its disvalue or harm is independent of it; it is another conduct that is also punishable. […] It is evident, then, that it concerns a typical conduct different from drug trafficking and whose description is not contained in Article 58. Subsequently, from the very letter of the law it follows that it concerns actions that threaten or harm diverse legal interests, since while illicit drug trafficking affects public health, in money laundering (legitimación de capitales) the harm is to the financial system of the economy into which the assets originating from that activity are inserted. Consequently, money laundering (legitimación de capitales), despite being a crime frequently linked to drug trafficking, does not form part of it as a crime, but is an independent crime» (the underlining does not correspond to the original). This Chamber endorses said position and, therefore, concludes that, with the conviction of [Name 026] for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) that occurred in this matter, the guarantee of non bis in idem was not violated. According to Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country”. The appellants mistakenly consider that the distinct actions for which the accused was held responsible cannot simultaneously constitute drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales), so, from their perspective, only a conviction for one of those crimes would be valid, since otherwise, it would entail a breach of the non bis in idem principle. Thus, what the appellants raise, in a veiled manner, is the existence of an apparent concurrence of norms (concurso aparente de normas) whenever the perpetrator of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is also the perpetrator of the predicate offense. An apparent concurrence (concurso aparente) occurs when the same conduct is described in several provisions that are mutually exclusive, so it is only possible to apply one of them (cf. section 23 of the Penal Code). Indeed, if we were faced with this type of concurrence, a conviction for both crimes would be improper. However, not only because we are faced with a scenario of plurality of actions, but because each one of the illicit acts in question protects dissimilar legal interests, the application of the apparent concurrence must be discarded. Upon analyzing the particular characteristics of this matter, this Chamber concludes that we are faced with multiple actions in a natural and legal sense, which configure two independent crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales), whose application is not mutually exclusive. As stated, the criterion for determining that the application of the illicit act of drug trafficking does not exclude that of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) (or vice versa), under the criteria of specialty, consumption (consunción) or alternativity, consists of the dissimilar nature of the legal interests protected in one case and the other. In this sense, the disvalue of the illicit act of drug trafficking, provided for in section 58 of Law No. 8204, does not absorb that corresponding to money laundering, since the latter punishes the active subject, among other aspects, for altering the socioeconomic order, through the introduction of capital that has an illicit activity as its origin. But in addition to that, we are not faced with an apparent concurrence of norms, because in the case under examination, despite a partial phenomenal coincidence in the activity that constitutes the factual basis for the conviction for both crimes (the acts of exhausting the predicate offense are in turn constitutive of money laundering (legitimación de capitales)), there is no unity of action (unidad de acción) in a legal sense. On this point, it has been indicated: «To determine when we are faced with one or several actions in a legal sense, different factors must be taken into account: 1) The author's plan; 2) Normative; 3) Spatio-temporal proximity. In the event that we find ourselves before a single action in a legal sense, a single crime would be configured (single infraction), an apparent concurrence (or concurrence of laws), or indeed, an ideal concurrence (concurso ideal). So provides our Penal Code when indicating, in its Article 21: “There is an ideal concurrence (concurso ideal) when with a single action or omission various legal provisions that are not mutually exclusive are violated”; while the regulation of the apparent concurrence of norms (also called concurrence of laws in the doctrine) is provided for in Article 23 of the same code. The plurality of actions in a legal sense gives rise to the possibility of a material concurrence (concurso material), or continued crime (which is a subcategory of the latter). Section 22 of the Penal Code indicates: “There is a material concurrence (concurso material) when the same agent separately or jointly commits several crimes” (Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, ruling no. 2020-301 of 12:30 p.m. on March 20, 2020). In the present case, there is neither unity of action (unidad de acción) from a legal point of view, nor is the will of the accused, to provide essential collaboration to the criminal group by concealing the fruit of drug trafficking and recruiting people for its transformation, unitarily assessed at a normative level. For this reason, this appellate court considers that we are faced with a material concurrence (concurso material) of both illicit acts. Thus, the partial coincidence in time and space of the factual platform serving as the basis for the conviction for one and the other figure, is not sufficient to consider that we are faced with a unity of action (unidad de acción) in a legal sense. By virtue of the foregoing, the first ground of the challenge filed personally by [Name 026] is declared without merit, as well as the second objection of the appeal formulated by licensed attorney Solórzano Hernández.\n\nThird ground of the appeal filed personally by [Name 026]. She alleges «Disagreement with the determination of the sentence». The appellant claims that section 71 of the Penal Code requires the judge to consider the subjective and objective aspects of the accused person and the crime when establishing the sentence, including the provisions of subsections a) and g) of the aforementioned norm. She points out, however, that the court did not analyze the socioeconomic or personal condition of [Name 026]. In this sense, she argues that her conditions of vulnerability, such as poverty and a low level of schooling, were not weighed, which produces the ineffectiveness of the act of determination of the sentence. She argues as a grievance that, by not analyzing mandatory aspects for the imposition of the punitive quantum, it is not possible to control that extreme of the decision. She requests the annulment of the sentence and a remand for a new trial. For the reasons that will be stated, the ground is partially declared with merit. This Chamber observes that the lower court (a quo) set forth an identical reasoning to justify the sentence, for both the crime of drug trafficking and that of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), as detailed below: «Regarding [Name 026], it is individually assessed and it is highly reprehensible that she used her home for the storage of money from the drug trafficking carried out by the criminal organization, taking advantage of the private nature that her dwelling held; likewise, it is highly reprehensible that she followed in the footsteps of her romantic partner [Name 029] to join the criminal organization. Regarding personal conditions in her favor, it is assessed that she is a young person of 30 years of age and has a clean criminal record, which prevents the court from increasing the imposed sentence» (cf. f. 988 and 994 of the judgment). Based on the above (supra), the trial court opted to impose the amount of 10 years of imprisonment for each of the crimes, which total 20 years of prison time. As a first clarification, it must be noted that the minimum sentence provided for in section 69 of Law No. 8204 for the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is 10 years of imprisonment, when the predicate offense is drug trafficking. By virtue of the foregoing, although the reasoning is limited and deficient —as will be discussed later—, the imposition of the minimum extreme —in principle— implies that no grievance is generated for the justiciable person. However, the defense argues that the conditions of vulnerability of the accused, derived from her low level of schooling and situation of poverty, were not considered. Although she does not express it literally, she seems to allude to Article 72 of the Penal Code, which allows the court to impose a sanction below the legal minimum, when such circumstances influence the commission of the illicit act. However, this Chamber notes that a request in that sense was not formulated in the trial conclusions, and the parties also did not provide the lower court (a quo) with elements that would allow it to carry out such a weighing. With the foregoing, this Court does not intend to attribute the burden of proof to the defense, which would be contrary to principles of supra-legal rank; however, to carry out an assessment of that nature, the trial court must have inputs arising from the oral and public debate, which is lacking in this case. Given this panorama, although it would have been desirable for the trial court to make a statement in this sense, the truth is that it is also not possible to question it for not having assessed the possibility of assigning a lesser sentence, when it did not have inputs and there was also no express request from the interested party. It is necessary to emphasize that the imposition of a sentence below the minimum due to the existence of conditions of vulnerability in the accused person must inevitably be preceded by proof of the influence this had on the commission of the crime, which is why the active role of the parties in the adversarial process is necessary to demonstrate that connection before the court, and in this case, no efforts in that sense are noted. By virtue of the foregoing, it is decided unanimously that the complaint cannot prosper with regard to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). A different scenario arises with the crime of drug trafficking, whose sanction was set at 2 years above the minimum extreme, without said increase being adequately justified, in the opinion of the majority of this Chamber. As has been noted in different sections of this pronouncement, the imposition of the sanction, being the moment in which the exercise of the State's punitive power becomes effective, must be preceded by adequate reasoning that expresses a meticulous analysis of the parameters provided by the legislator in section 71 of the Penal Code, as well as the expression of the reasons why the fixed quantum is reasonable and proportional, in light of the circumstances of the case and the personal conditions of the accused person. On this point, the Third Chamber, in resolution 2012244, of 10:38 a.m. on February 17, 2012, indicated: «The justification of the sentence must effectively be composed of the analysis of the subjective and objective conditions of the facts, the intensity and magnitude of their implications, as well as the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.\n\nIn relation to the latter, this Chamber has held the criterion of their importance, particularly when determining in the judgment the amount of the sentence to be imposed; in this regard, in ruling 0314-2010 of 08:55 hours on April 30, 2010, issued by this Chamber, the jurisprudential criterion was reiterated, according to which: “The setting of the criminal sanction not only requires dwelling on the analysis of the aspects contained in the referred Article 71 but also resorting to parameters of proportionality and reasonableness in order to endow the imposition of the sentence with valid content, because that moment turns out to be precisely the high point within the jurisdictional task in our criminal system, the moment in which the exercise of the ius puniendi is individualized and concretized. It is a constitutionally protected right that the accused clearly knows the reasons why the State decides to apply a custodial sentence, as well as the reasons why the quantum set for the application of said sanction is reasonable and proportional to the degree of reproach.” […] the dimension of the judgment of reproach, anticipated by the legislator in the minimum and maximum extremes of the established sentence, must be carried out within those margins and adhering to the guidelines of numeral 71 of the Penal Code. Normative culpability obliges the judge to assess the circumstances surrounding the agent at the time of the act, to establish whether the legal system could—under the specific circumstances—require with greater or lesser severity an action in accordance with the law, and thus, the more demandable, the more reproachable, and conversely, the less demandable, the less reproachable. Culpability is nothing other than the reproach for acting with clear awareness of the unlawfulness of the act being performed, together with the breach of the law and with society—without insurmountable physical risk and without insurmountable psychological pressure—in circumstances suitable for acting correctly. It is a conscious choice, where the subject inclines towards the violation of the norm despite having been able to act in accordance with the law.” In the case at hand, the trial court, in a generic manner, alludes to the use of the defendant's home as the site of commission of the crime and to her following her husband's steps to participate in the criminal organization; however, due to the limited reasoning, it is not possible to determine why these circumstances justify a greater reproach. This Chamber is not unaware that the events took place within the heart of a criminal organization and that the accused agreed to actively participate in the illicit activity at a crucial phase, properly when securing the enjoyment of the profits was sought; however, the setting of the sanction, as well as its basis, is the exclusive province of the trial court and it would not be possible to uphold the decision in any other way than by substituting its function and completing in this forum the reasoning that would be necessary to deem the sanction well justified. What has been able to be verified, and is so declared by majority, is that the reasoning of the sanction is limited and deficient, reason for which it is necessary to uphold the ground, although for reasons different from those set forth by the appealing party. Based on the foregoing, by majority vote, the complaint is declared partially granted; consequently, the sanction imposed is annulled only with regard to the crime of drug trafficking and the matter is remanded for trial for a new substantiation of this point, an opportunity in which the principle of no reformatio in peius must be observed. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. With respect to the sentence set for the illicit act of money laundering, the ground is unanimously declared without merit.-\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With marked respect, I separate myself from the majority decision of this *ad quem* chamber, and for the reasons I set forth below, I declare without merit the appeal of the defendant [Name 026] with respect to the crime of drug trafficking. As indicated in Considerando XIV, the complaint regarding the reasoning of the sentence was unanimously declared without merit, only with respect to the crime of money laundering; reason for which this dissenting vote refers, as I indicated, only to the reasoning of the sanction that the court imposed on [Name 026] for the illicit act of drug trafficking. Contrary to what the appealing defendant claims, I consider that the judgment did adequately state the reasons for the sentence of ten years of imprisonment for the crime of drug trafficking. In Considerando Seven, letter A of the decision, the *a quo* set forth a graduation of sentences that, from my point of view, constitutes a clear individualization of the sanctions for all the convicted persons, because the individual reproach was equated with the level that each defendant occupied in the pyramidal structure of the criminal organization. This is reasonable and adequate, because the judgment made clear what the functions of each accused were in the context of the common plan and the proven division of functions, in order to understand the placement of each one in the framework of the criminal group. Thus, it is evident that the increases in sentences respond to those specific contributions of the convicted persons, which justifies, in my opinion, that, for example, the leader is the one who receives the most severe sanction – set by the court at twenty years of imprisonment –, followed by the others based on their proximity to the top of the organization. In a staggered manner, the ruling adjusted the sentences corresponding to the degree of reproach of the convicted persons, among them [Name 026], who was placed in a link closer to the base of the pyramid, reason for which she only received an increase of two years of imprisonment above the statutory minimum – which is eight years. This person was convicted for a crime of drug trafficking and also for an illicit act of money laundering, committed in the context of her participation, as a co-perpetrator, within a very well-structured criminal organization with a very stable survival over time. Thus, from my point of view, it is reasonable that there are similarities in the reasoning of the reproach for both offenses, because both crimes had as a common factor the existence of the same criminal network, but they were also committed according to the special position that [Name 026] held within it. Therefore, it is not an error of the judgment that, when dimensioning the degree of culpability of the defendant for both crimes, the characteristics of her location in the hierarchy of the criminal organization were weighed, as well as the logistical environment from which she acted, for it is reasonable that, when setting the sanction for the two illicit acts committed by [Name 026], the court assessed the physical and personal assets that, as a member of the criminal structure, were certainly the same ones employed to commit both crimes. Upon reviewing the ruling, specifically from page 986 onward, it can be determined that, regarding the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking, the decision-making body made it clear that [Name 026] acted with excess in relation to the elements of the criminal type, which reflects that, by making visible that greater degree of culpability, the sanction should also be greater, which I deem correct since the sentence must be just and proportional, as the trial court well determined. Specifically, the *a quo* reproached [Name 026] for having participated as a co-perpetrator in a large criminal structure, for the number of its members and its duration over time certainly stand as factors that place public health in greater danger, compared to other smaller structures and of lesser duration over time. In this regard, I consider it in keeping with common sense to affirm that, in view of the legal interest, the drug trafficking organizations that are larger and more stable traffic larger quantities of drugs and also obtain greater profits, from which it can be affirmed along with the court of merit, in my opinion, that the increase of two years of imprisonment above the legal minimum is justified by these factors in consideration of the greater danger to public health. Along the same line, the judgment also rebuked [Name 026] for having taken advantage of the privacy of her home to collude with the criminal network and to do her part of the work there in accordance with the consensual division of functions, just as she was reproached for acting under the support of her sentimental partner [Name 029], who was also an active member of the criminal group, but much closer to the top, and who, it is worth remembering, was given a greater sanction than [Name 026] precisely because his higher position in the hierarchical structure was due to his enormous contributions to the criminal enterprise and, consequently, the *quantum* of his sentence – twelve years – was equated to his degree of culpability. In sum, the specific factors of [Name 026]'s situation, expressly assessed by the court, do allow an understanding of her degree of culpability in the commission of the crime of drug trafficking and, in my opinion, justify the increase of two years of imprisonment over the base amount of eight set by criminal law.\n\nI do not omit to note that the judgment also contained the increase, considering that [Name 026] is a young person – thirty years old at the time of trial – and without a criminal record, hence I am of the opinion that the reasoning for his sentence did conform to the legal duty to state grounds, thus opting to vote to dismiss this aspect of his challenge.-\n\n15. First ground of appeal filed by master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Name 013], [Name 022], and [Name 015]. He alleges \"Disagreement with the assessment of evidence, lack of analytical and intellectual grounds, violation of the rules of sound rational criticism, and breach of the principle of impartial judge\". He indicates that the a quo granted absolute preeminence to the prosecution's evidence, without carrying out a balanced analysis of the totality of the evidentiary body, thereby incurring a biased assessment that harms the principle of impartiality. He adds that an arbitrary selection of evidentiary means was made, by omitting, within the judgment, substantial parts of the testimonies that benefited his clients. He states that the assessment carried out by the trial court was directed solely to favor the Public Prosecutor's Office; furthermore, extremely serious errors by the prosecuting entity were resolved. He points out, as a preamble, that the dates on which the facts would have taken place are described in points 4.13 to 4.16 of the accusation. He emphasizes that, from folio 245 onwards, his clients were mentioned as members of a criminal structure, whose function was described \"generically, globalizing circumstances of each one\". He argues that the judgment details various tasks under the charge of his clients, such as distribution of drug caches, collection of money derived from drug trafficking activity, storage and custody of drug caches, money and weapons. He outlines that from folio 286 onwards, mention is made that his clients carried out various acts detailed from point 4.13 to 4.16. He questions that in point 4.13, various conducts were alluded to in a general manner, without justifying situations of time, place and manner; in addition to covering a considerable period of approximately two years. He denounces that, from folio 4.14, after analyzing the accusation and the evidence, he verifies that none of the witnesses stated that on November 21, 2019, any drug seizure was obtained, which is why unequivocally, it is not possible to determine that on that date ([Name 013] and [Name 015] stored a cache of narcotics. He argues that, based on the information provided by the witnesses and the evidence contained in the case file, there can be no certainty of what was set forth by the prosecutorial representation, because the only thing available is an equivocal (anfibológico) indication, which is the wiretap, which consists of a conversation without any type of materialization. He asserts that only mere police syllogisms exist, based on the content of the wiretaps, as stated by witnesses [Name 093] and [Name 092], who stated that, against his clients, for that event, there were only wiretaps and that no materialization of narcotics occurred that allows arriving at a state of certainty. He argues that this indication is equivocal (anfibológico). He accuses that the judgment presents ambiguities and gaps, which cannot generate a detriment to his clients, because, according to point 4.14 of the accusation, these \"possessed and stored a cache of narcotics\", without stating what type, despite the breadth of the term, nor the quantity. He considers that the a quo carried out a biased assessment of the evidence, did not apply sound criticism, the testimonies contain police syllogisms, the cross-examination carried out by the defense was not taken into account, despite the fact that, from the questions asked, it is concluded that there was no seizure of illicit substances. As a grievance, he highlights that the lack of intellectual reasoning, in the analysis of the documentary and testimonial evidence, led to an illegitimate conclusion contrary to the principle of derivation, consequently, a sentence was imposed that harms their personal freedom. He requests that his clients be acquitted or, failing that, that a retrial be ordered. Additionally, that the cessation of pretrial detention be ordered, because it was ordered as a consequence of the judgment. Second ground of appeal filed by master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Name 013], [Name 022], and [Name 015]. He claims \"Disagreement with the factual determination due to violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment\". He accuses that within the intellectual grounds, facts and dynamics not contained in the accusatory instrument were taken as proven and used within the analysis, which is harmful to the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment. He transcribes facts 4.13 to 4.16 of the prosecutorial accusation, then indicates that sections 4.13 and 4.14 maintained their original wording, while 4.15 and 4.16 were adjusted regarding the dates. He considers that arbitrarily and without justification, the court harmed the right of the accused, due to the lack of assessment of the existing evidence, by concluding that the facts occurred in the year 2019 and not as set forth in the accused factual framework, which alludes to the year 2020. He accuses that the variation in dates violates the right of defense of his clients, because it could be determined, through the wiretaps, \"that in tome XVI of the wiretap file at folios 5274 to folio 5332 where the dates of May 2020 are observed and in the same tome XVI at folios 5354 to 5365 of the month of June of the year 2020, where no calls are observed nor are there wiretaps that can mention the facts described in the accusation\" [sic]. He adds that there are no seizures against his clients or third parties, nor controlled purchases that would give a trace of a possible crime and that would allow accrediting, as facts 4.15 and 4.16 indicate, that the accused possessed 2 kg of drugs or that they guarded and/or stored a drug cache on June 13, 2020. He states that the prosecutor did not correct the dates of the alluded facts and despite this, the court made the modification. He affirms that the variation of the dates was carried out in order to obtain minimal equivocal (anfibológicos) indications, which allowed accrediting an illicit act. He reiterates that drugs were never mentioned in the wiretaps and only police syllogisms are available. He considers that the variation made to the dates demonstrates that the court was biased, because for the accused period there were no indications of an illicit activity. He maintains that what occurred cannot be seen as a simple material error and, even in that case, the correction should have been requested by the Public Prosecutor's Office.\n\nHe emphasizes that no drugs were seized from his clients during the investigation, nor in the raids carried out, consequently, there is no evidence of the crime of storage. As a grievance, he denounces that his clients were convicted, despite the lack of details about the circumstances of time, manner and place of the facts, coupled with the fact that what is charged does not coincide with what was proven. He requests that the ground be granted and an acquittal judgment be issued in favor of his clients. In the alternative, that a retrial be ordered. Furthermore, he requires the freedom of his clients, because the precautionary measure of pretrial detention was ordered as a consequence of the conviction judgment. The claims are dismissed. Having analyzed the defense's allegations, in which they question the declaration of criminal responsibility of their clients for the crime of drug trafficking, this Chamber concludes that, even though they are partially right, it is not appropriate to grant the grounds. To begin the analysis, it is necessary to outline the proven facts that relate to said illicit act: \"1.\n\nIn the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money derived from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: The storage and dosing of drug shipments acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of shipments to the various points of sale. The sale of drug shipments owned by the criminal group to other narco-gangs based within the national territory. The sale of drug shipments owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug addicts, through properties held by the organization for \"Bunker\"-type purposes, as well as on the public thoroughfares of the zones under control of the organization. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for that purpose the employment of various means to that end. 3. This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so that each of its members performed specific functions, all under a single direction, the sale of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they exercised the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows: […] [Nombre 013]: a member of the criminal group, who was one of the trusted persons of leader [Nombre 001], who was responsible, among other functions, for ensuring the latter's personal security, as well as carrying out custody tasks for the drug transports executed by the criminal group; he was also one of those responsible for transmitting to the remaining members of the organization the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001]; on behalf of the latter, he supervised and carried out personally the collection and storage of the monies obtained from the drug trafficking activity, for which purpose he used a property belonging to his mother as a \"warehouse\" or storage center for the illicit supplies of the criminal organization.\n\n**[Name 022]**: member of the criminal group, who, in association with the accused ([Name 013]), was responsible, among other functions, for his personal security, as well as carrying out custody duties for the drug transports executed by the criminal group; he was also another of those responsible for transmitting the orders and directives issued by [Name 001] to the remaining members of the organization; under the direction and supervision of the leader, he carried out the collection and storage of the money obtained from the drug trafficking activity […] **[Name 015]**: member of the narco structure, who, among other functions, was responsible for providing support in the tasks assigned by the criminal leader to the accused [Name 004] and [Name 022], primarily in the distribution of drug shipments and the collection of money derived from the activity of drug trafficking; he was also one of the persons designated in the organization to store and guard, in his home, supplies belonging to the organization, primarily drug shipments, money, and weapons […] 4.13 As part of the distribution of functions among the members of the criminal group, the group's hierarchy allowed, in the period of 2018 and until the month of October 2020, members of the criminal organization to carry out various functions aimed at the possession and storage of supplies ranging from drugs, money, and firearms; said actions were delegated by the leader of the criminal group [Name 001] to the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], and for such purposes they used the home located in [...], and for this storage action the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.14 On November 21, 2019, the accused ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the drug possession and storage functions that they carried out for the criminal group, held under their possession and storage a shipment of narcotics, which was destined for commercialization with third parties, clients of the criminal organization they formed. 4.15 On May 19, 2019, the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed and stored at least two kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, in the property located in the home situated at [...], a drug that was destined for sale to third parties. 4.16 On June 13, 2019, the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed, guarded, and stored a shipment of narcotics in the property located in the home situated at [...], a drug that was destined for sale to third parties […] 6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, the raids, searches, and seizures were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the detention of the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the accused acts and which are set out below […] 6.6 Regarding the result of the raids, searches, and seizures carried out in the property located at [...], a home used by the accused [Name 022], [Name 015] and ([Name 013]) as a domicile and collection center for weapons, drugs, and money, products of drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, black color, IMEI number 866223030330196, SIM card with no visible brand with number 8950604402808424655 and a Samsung brand micro SD card. Used for the development of criminal activity. • A Samsung brand cell phone, blue color, with IMEI number 357716087681490, with a white SIM card with no visible brand with number 8950604401712850476F and an 8GB black micro SD card. Used for the development of criminal activity.\n\n• Photographically documented: a Glock brand firearm case with adhesive tape where the name [Name 022] is observed; the weapon model is a Glock 17 caliber 9x19 serial number BEZC912.\n• Photographically documented: eight intercom radios with six earpiece bases and chargers.\n• Photographically documented: a bulletproof vest with no visible brand or serial number.\n• Photographically documented: a Banco Nacional digital signature card in the name of [Name 022] and three weapon carry permits in the name of [Name 022].\n• Photographically documented: a firearm case, brand Glock, model Glock 17 caliber 9x19 serial number BMKC172.\n• A black signaling device with the legend \"4T-006\" serial number 021635 with its respective charger, five antennas, and a vehicle power charger all inside a case.\n• A bank deposit receipt for 354,600 colones, depositor [Name 022], document number 14121040. A dollar purchase receipt for $600, colones to be paid 354,600, document number 14105387.\n• A pistol-type firearm, brand Beretta, serial number filed down with a die-stamped number 666 on the barrel portion, with a black magazine containing 15 unfired 9mm caliber rounds.\n• Three hundred eighty-nine unfired 7.62 x 39 caliber rounds.\n• A black pistol-type firearm, caliber 9x19, brand Taurus serial number TF056301, with a black magazine and 16 unfired 9mm caliber rounds.\n• A black pistol-type firearm, caliber 9x19, brand Glock serial number PFA677, with a black magazine with a capacity of 16 rounds, and two black magazines each with a capacity of 30 rounds containing 21 unfired 9x19 caliber rounds.\n• A black pistol-type firearm, caliber 9mm, brand Beretta serial number 1108590, a black magazine for 15 rounds with 15 unfired rounds, and a sound suppressor.\n• Three hundred twenty unfired 5.56 caliber rounds, 3 magazines, and one magazine with extended capacity.\n• A magazine for a .40 caliber pistol with a capacity of 28 rounds, containing 13 unfired .40 caliber rounds.\n• A steel plate or die with a pattern of circles on the lower part.\n• Five hundred twenty-dollar United States bills for a total of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars), money that was the product of the criminal activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be inserted into the national financial market and that was stored in that property by the defendants [Name 022], [Name 015] and ([Name 013])» [sic] (cfr. pp. 276 to 311 of the judgment). From the transcribed facts which, it is worth noting, coincide with those charged by the Public Prosecutor's Office —except in points 4.15 and 4.16, where the year 2020 was changed to 2019— several actions attributed to the three defendants are apparent, namely: to [Name 022], alias «[Name 123]»: (i) personal security for [Name 001] (fact 3), (ii) relaying orders and directives from [Name 001] to other members of the structure (fact 3), (iii) possession and storage of weapons (facts 4.13, 6.6), (iv) possession, collection, and storage of money (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6), (v) custody during drug transports (fact 3) and (vi) possession and storage of drugs (facts 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16); to ([Name 013]), alias «[Name 124]»: (i) personal security for [Name 001] (fact 3), (ii) relaying orders and directives from ([Name 001]) to other members of the structure (fact 3), (iii) stockpiling of weapons (facts 3, 4.13, 6.6); (iv) collection and storage of money (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6); (v) custody during drug transports (fact 3) and (vi) possession and storage of drugs (facts 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16); and to [Name 015]: (i) providing support to her children [Name 004] and [Name 022], in the functions entrusted to them (fact 3); (ii) possession, storage, and custody of weapons (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6); (iii) possession, storage, and collection of money derived from drug trafficking activity (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6); (iv) possession, storage, and distribution of drug caches (facts 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16). Specifically, the defense considers that the activity of possession, storage, and distribution of drugs was not duly accredited. Although some of the conduct described in the accusation was not duly accredited, it is not possible to share the defense's thesis. The judgment carries out an extensive analysis of the link between [Name 015], [Name 022] and ([Name 013]), with the criminal organization led by [Name 001], emphasizing the multiplicity of functions they performed. This Tribunal agrees with the a quo that this link is clearly established based on the evidence adduced in the adversarial proceedings, which consisted mainly of a significant number of police reports, the testimony of the officers in charge of the investigation, the result of the telephone intercepts, and the findings obtained in the raid. The events of interest consist of those described in points 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 of the statement of facts, which detail drug storage activities by the defendants, temporally located on November 21, May 19, and June 13, all in 2019 respectively — according to the correction made by the trial court —. Upon conducting a comprehensive review of the judgment and evaluating the way in which the trial court assessed the evidence, this Chamber notes that only one of those three events is duly proven, specifically the one located on May 19, 2019, as will be detailed further below. Regarding the fact described in point 4.14, dated November 21, 2019, the a quo stated: «Having clearly established the active participation within the criminal group of [Name 013], [Name 022] and [Name 015], it was charged and is considered proven that on November 21, 2019, the defendants ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the drug possession and storage functions they performed for the criminal group, kept a cache of narcotics in their possession and under storage, which was destined for commercialization with third parties, clients of the criminal organization they formed. To reach this degree of certainty, the following call was available: “From [Value 079]. Call identified with sequence number 0319985. The intervened telephone right maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 079]. This call was made at 11:42 hours on November 21, 2019.\n\n[Name 015] alias “[Name 125]” made a call to ([Name 013]) alias “[Name 124]”, user of right [Value 079]. [Name 015] said- listen son, [Name 004] said – uh-huh, [Name 015] said – it’s half of the cajeta right, [Name 004] said uh-huh yes, [Name 015] said- oh okay so you know, [Name 004] said – well, [Name 128] – well so be careful, [Name 004] said – well”. It is more than evident that [Name 015], being at the residence and having custody of the drug, talks with his son [Name 013] and they come to confirm that what is being kept in custody is half of a cajeta, which obviously refers to drugs. It must not be forgotten that at the residence where [Name 015] lived, sweets or cajetas were never processed but rather what was occurring was the storage of drugs as reflected by the call» [sic] (cf. folios 555 to 556 of the judgment). This Chamber differs from the analysis carried out by the trial court, since the call, even analyzed in relation to the rest of the evidentiary elements concerning the accused, is not so clear and express, and therefore it is not suitable for deriving that at the time it occurred, the accused persons were storing drugs in their home. Although the term «cajeta» is usually used in drug trafficking slang to refer to compact portions of drugs, the truth is that it involves an interpretation of the content of the communication, which becomes equivocal, if the information cannot be corroborated by other means. Note that, apart from the use of the word «cajeta», the communication transcribed above does not provide additional elements or references that would allow one to reasonably establish or infer an action of storing or trafficking drugs carried out by [Name 015] and his son [Name 013] on the date the communication occurred. From the analysis of the evidence, it is not verified that, beyond the content of the referred communication, any other information was assessed that would allow giving truthfulness to the interpretation made of it. Furthermore, no reference is made in the communication about the location where that «cajeta» would be situated, nor what was done with it, so as to be able to affirm that it was being commercialized from the home of the defendants with a third party. It cannot be considered an inference derived from the analyzed circumstantial evidence, but rather it actually takes the form of a presumption, which in this context may or may not be true, and therefore doubt persists about that event. Different is the circumstance presented by the fact derived from point 4.15, located on May 19, 2019. Regarding this, the trial court stated: «Having indicated the above, they were accused and it was demonstrated that on May 19, 2019, the defendants [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the duties delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed and stored at least two kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, in the property located at the home situated in [...], a drug that was intended for sale to third parties; the following call served as individuating evidentiary support for the conduct: “From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0113193. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 21:52 hours on May 19, 2019. [Name 124] spoke with [Name 123], [Name 123] said – hello, [Name 124] said – man, [Name 123] said - what?, [Name 124] said - how many babies are in the House?, [Name 123] said – uh, two, [Name 124] said - two?, [Name 123] said – yes, [Name 124] said - are you sure?, [Name 123] said – well yes dumbass because he hasn’t taken out anything else right?, [Name 124] said – uh-huh, [Name 123] said - are you at the house?, [Name 124] said – no, here, [Name 123] said – haaa, and is someone opening the tube?, [Name 124] said – pissing, well, I’m going to check now, [Name 123] said – two, two two two but look, they are in the old drawer in the TV, [Name 124] said – oh okay okay, [Name 123] said – two if there are. Communication ends”. Based on the context that has been analyzed, it is clear that at the time of the call, both [Name 004] and [Name 022] are not at their home, given that they are performing the tasks entrusted by the leader of the organization for its operation, but in the home where both lived with their mother, two “babies” were stored, a term already analyzed that refers to packages of drugs; on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that in the home, the one who remained was [Name 015] performing the custodial duties of the drug stored there, as has been so evidenced during the previous calls, as well as the one at hand and even more so with the one that accredited the events of June 13, which is the call that will be analyzed next. Their home, referred to in the accusation, was the same home raided and in which evidence was located that credited with certainty their participation within the criminal group» [sic] (cf. folios 531 to 532 of the judgment). This Chamber agrees that the term «babies» was one of those used by the members of the criminal organization to refer to drugs, specifically kilograms of cocaine, as was established based on the drug transports carried out by [Name 029] for supply to the criminal organizations investigated in preliminary cases 18-000017-1219-PE and 19-014179-0042-PE —as detailed in considerando X, to which reference is made for its reading—, so it is possible to infer that it is that illicit object that the defendants refer to in the conversation. The foregoing is relevant because three days before that communication, that is, on May 16, 2019, one of the transports and drug supplies attributed to [Name 029] occurred, specifically in the Aserrí sector, vicinity of the cemetery, processed under preliminary case number 19-014179-0042-PE, which resulted in the seizure from a third party of 2521 wrappers with fragments of cocaine and the raid of a home in which more than 2 kilograms of cocaine were also found, which occurred the following day, that is, on May 17, 2019. Because the use of the term «babies» or «babys» was fully corroborated as a form of coded language to allude to drugs, specifically cocaine, used by ([Name 004]), it makes complete sense that this term was also used by other members of the criminal organization to identify that illicit material. The relationship of [Name 022] and ([Name 013]) with [Name 029] was fully established, as a result of the telephone interceptions and surveillances carried out by the judicial police, since even from the beginning of the investigation the three subjects were involved in security and custodial duties for [Name 001], which evidenced the coordination existing among them —this point will be further elaborated on later—, so it is possible to infer that, in the transcribed communication, they are indeed referring to drugs, cocaine type. Added to the above is the information provided in the hearing by the judicial investigator [Name 092], who directed the investigations against this criminal organization. \n\nFrom the testimony of said official, the court a quo transcribed a passage of the statement, with the following information: “What the investigator in charge, [Name 092], stated during the debate cannot be overlooked, regarding the investigative steps carried out: ‘[Name 029] told alias [Name 123] [Name 022] to take this, so [Name 123] asked him if the mission fai, if the mission had failed, to which [Name 029] told him yes, evidencing that the delivery could not be made on the 18th due to the police operation carried out by us; furthermore, on May 19th, according to the criminal judge’s recordings, a communication took place between [Name 022] and [Name 004], where [Name 004] asked [Name 022] how many babies were left in the house, to which [Name 123] told him that 2 were left, and even indicated that they were the ones under the TV on the stand.’” [sic] (cfr. folios 558 to 556 of the judgment). In the exercise of comprehensive review of the decision and the judgment, this Chamber verified the existence of the communication, which was generated on May 18, 2019, and corresponds to sequence 0047855, from telephone line [Value 077], at 00:37 hours, with the following content: “[Name 083] spoke with [Name 123]; [Name 083] said — mae come here a sec; [Name 123] said — I’m coming, where bro?; [Name 083] said — say here to the car bro so he can take that stuff; [Name 123] said — didn’t mission fail?; [Name 083] said — yes; [Name 123] said — ok ok why don’t you bring it to my pad? Communication ends.” (cfr. folios 556 to 557 of the investigative file). From this communication, it follows that [Name 029] asked [Name 022] to remove something he was transporting in his car, and the latter asked him to take it to his residence. Let us recall that [Name 029] was observed by the judicial police in the vehicle with license plate [Value 068] at the time it was possible to determine that he was transporting drugs to other organizations, including the event of May 16, 2019, in the Aserrí area, and which triggered the entire police deployment that led to the search of the dwelling where the delivery was made on May 17, 2019, so it is entirely logical that he would momentarily cease carrying out activities of the same nature and would dispose of any illicit material that could compromise him, by handing it over into the custody of other members of the organization. In this scenario, the communication held the following day between the brothers ([Name 013]) makes total sense, when [Name 004] asks [Name 022] how many “babies” were in the house at that moment, since it was [Name 022] who had received the delivery the day before from [Name 029], which allowed him to detail to his brother the exact location, in an old drawer under the TV. This information must necessarily be correlated with the communication that was taken into account to deem point 4.16 of the accusation proven, which was generated on June 13, 2019, and has the following content: “From [Value 087]. Call identified with sequence number 0360925. The intercepted telephone subscriber communicates with the user of the telephone service [Value 103].”\n\nThis call was made at 5:09 p.m. on the 13th day of June 2019. [Name 022] alias “[Name 123]” spoke with “[Name 125]”, [Name 125] told him – [Name 022], [Name 123] told him – that, [Name 125] told him – papi you know I already investigated how the situation was with those men, [Name 123] told him with whom, [Name 125] told him with the ones who jumped onto the roof, [Name 123] told him – I don't know what the deal is, [Name 125] told him – it was lapicito and some young guy who also lives right around there, [Name 123] told him – who, [Name 125] told him – it was [Name 257], [Name 257] the thing was he arrived and told [Name 159] to calm down but he was going to kill her dog, because [Name 159] was the one who told me “look [Name 015] it was people from [Name 153]” she tells me, from [Name 153] I don't think so I told him, [Name 123] told him – uh-huh, [Name 125] told him – and she told me yes it was lapicito and some young guy who rides around on a red motorcycle she tells me but the other [Name 181] I don't know who he is but she says yes that he hangs around a lot with [Name 010] that [Name 181], [Name 123] told him – and what was the deal, [Name 125] told him – and the deal is that the one who let them jump around there because they had the law behind them was [Name 012] the tarzan chick this [Name 012] the one from behind where we live and that was the same day there was the problem and that was at five in the afternoon, that was when the shots starting being heard up here, [Name 123] told him – uh-huh, uh-huh, [Name 125] told him – you remember they started shooting and what not and so well Mrs. [Name 074] says no that they wrecked her place that they caved in her roof, and [Name 159] says that yes she saw them and that the guy arrived and that he was going to kill the dog so it wouldn't bite him she says hey what, and that he tells her calm down mae eat quietly mae because I work for [Name 153] and that, and what can you do, and so then she tells him no papi you were bluffing, you aren't with that guy, do you think one is an idiot, so these people say that they are all riled up, what they tell me is that why don't I go and stand up and why don't I talk to that guy to tell this guy, [Name 123] told him – don't you get involved in anything, [Name 125] told him – man no it's just that you know what the thing is, in a way yes I would talk but it's for us for my house because I'm going to tell you something, just as, [Name 123] told him – but wait I already spoke, I already told him, I already spoke with him, I didn't know who the guys were but I already spoke and he already gave me the green light that's all, [Name 125] told him – well, well if it's a green light now what you have to tell him, tell him it was lapicito and that lapicito used his name, that's why the old man came here angry to tell me that whenever someone uses that man's name, [Name 123] told him – mami dude stop saying that I tell things to him, nothing to do with it, just leave it now I am going to tell him look mae they told me that well yes, and I got all worked up there at the place and all that stuff, and next time let me know, that's all I'm going to tell him, [Name 125] told him – and another thing, and another thing, [Name 123] told him – another what, [Name 125] told him – that's what he told me that I don't know what, [Name 123] told him – that I am going to screw over that guy [Name 257] and I am going to say it next time let me know because I was worked up about the place and well yes I say yes if some son of a bitch comes in here I'll put a bullet in him, next time let me know, [Name 125] told him – no don't say let me know because no you can't be doing that because the poor old lady had an attack and almost died, [Name 123] told him – yes, yes but you stop getting involved in stuff, if someone has to be telling them something let it be those people, [Name 125] told him – no, no the only thing I tell you is, they have to watch my entrance for me and if my entrance which is out back no one is going to watch for me then they'd better just screw me over, because I'm going to tell you one thing little daddy yes if I don't watch my own ass no one watches it for me, if we don't watch out for ourselves no one watches out for us just like this piece of a son of a bitch and also the other son of a bitch lend themselves to that kind of shit so easily they come in to rob us by lending themselves because as they know there's money here that they lend themselves and they just come in while one sleeps just because out back there there isn't a security, [Name 123]\n\n– mommy but if you are going to talk to me, speak properly, stop saying stupid things on the phone, [Name 125] said – I'm not saying anything serious, nothing serious I'm saying, [Name 123] said – nothing serious, look, stop saying idiotic things, if not, don't even call me, I just spoke, just that, mommy, just stay quiet, stop being annoying, I already spoke, [Name 125] said – then look, I'm also going to have to go and speak the truth and better so, [Name 123] said – what do you have to come and talk about, [Name 125] said – no then I legally, since you spoke and you don't give a damn, I'm going to have to go, [Name 123] said – that you don't give a damn, I already spoke, I already told you and he already gave me the green light, just that, [Name 125] said – yes green light, according to you he's going to break that great gentleman who is a daddy to him, oh please [Name 022] amazes me, amazes me to know that according to you, that dude knowing that it was this dude and that it was another one of his guys, you know he's not going to do anything to him, rather, welcome they are, [Name 123] said – mommy if you're going to call me, call me and get serious, stop saying nonsense, [Name 125] said – okay, okay – Communication ends» [sic] (cfr.\n\n(folios 541 to 544 of the judgment). Regarding this communication, it is necessary to point out that this Chamber does not agree with the interpretation made by the trial court, in the sense that it is possible to infer that on the date it occurred, [Name 015] and his children were storing drugs for the organization, because the rules of experience indicate that in the slang used by persons involved in criminal activities of this nature, the term \"galeta\" has various meanings, as it can refer both to a stash of drugs and to a site used for its storage. The communication is not sufficiently clear or unequivocal to derive that, at that moment, drugs were stored in the dwelling inhabited by the three defendants, but it is sufficient to understand that the site was used for those purposes, since [Name 015] clearly indicates to his son that there is \"galeta\" in his dwelling and that this is the reason he fears for the security of his home and for the possibility that, given the knowledge that third parties might have of this situation, they would break into his dwelling. Even more, in the raids carried out at that dwelling, it became evident that it was a storage site for the organization's supplies—the detail is found further below. It must also be highlighted that the call denotes that [Name 015] not only actively participated in the storage activity, but also had full knowledge of the hierarchical position of [Name 001], whom he refers to as \"[Name 153],\" which is the reason he asks his son to speak with said individual in order to arrange security for his dwelling. Thus, this communication is actually useful if it is assessed together with those generated on May 18 and 19 transcribed previously, since it is possible to infer from their concatenated analysis that the defendants' dwelling was used for drug storage and that one of the occasions on which this situation occurred was precisely May 19, 2019, as held to be proven by the a quo. It bears repeating, these communications gain meaning and are corroborated based on the judicial police intervention carried out days before in the sector of Aserrí, when an important seizure of drugs supplied by [Name 029] took place. In summary, in the opinion of this Chamber, based on the evidence analyzed by the trial court, only the event detailed in point 4.15 can be considered proven, but not those set forth in points 4.14 and 4.16. Now, with regard to the defense's complaint concerning the modification of the year 2020 to 2019 carried out ex officio by the trial court, it is necessary to point out that it consists of the correction of a material error. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in fact 1 of the prosecutorial accusation, the temporal parameter was established within which the criminal organization operated and in which the accused persons would have carried out the assigned actions, specifically from April 2018 to October 2020. The corrected date falls within that range, and therefore, it is not a surprising circumstance for the defendant and his defense. In addition to the above, on folio 3959 verso, it is recorded that the communication taken as the main basis for that event corresponds to sequence 0113193, which formed part of the evidentiary material offered and admitted since the preliminary hearing, whose date of production, May 16, 2019, was recorded both in the police reports and in the transcriptions made by the judicial authority. Regarding the possibility of making material corrections to the date of the facts, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution No. 2004-00657, of 09:50, June 11, 2004, indicated: \"Therefore, although it is optimal that the temporal circumstances of the facts held to be proven are appropriately indicated—if possible—from the moment the accusation is formulated, if this is not the case, it will not affect the decision if it does not cause defenselessness, and in this case, as can be seen from the very content of the complaint, which was filed on the day the events occurred, there was no difficulty in placing the events in time, an aspect that was at all times known by the accused and his defense. Even further, when it is not possible to indicate the exact date, it would be sufficient to establish a temporal frame of reference, which allows the accused to carry out an adequate exercise of the defense. In relation to the foregoing, we must point out that the mere circumstance that the spatial or temporal placement of the events is altered in the verdict in a manner different from how it is set forth in the accusation does not imply the existence of a defect. Indeed, it is once the evidence has been presented that, in accordance with the accusatorial principles of orality, immediacy, concentration, continuity, and publicity inherent to the adversarial process, the investigated conducts can be established with greater precision, without that affecting the necessary correlation between what is accused and what is decided, since both pieces do not necessarily have to be identical to each other, but rather it is the essential core of the facts in both documents that must maintain similar characteristics, in order to guarantee effective respect for the accused's right to exercise his defense regarding the attributed actions.\" The criterion set forth by the Court of Cassation, which this Tribunal shares, details that, when defenselessness is not generated, the correction may be made and, in this case, the evidence added to the case file, to which the defense had access, allowed it to know this circumstance beforehand and even anticipate the correction that was finally made. By virtue of the foregoing, no defect is determined to have arisen from the material correction that was made. Furthermore, as already detailed, the prosecutorial accusation attributed other functions to the defendants, which also entail criminal liability for them, namely: [Name 022] and ([Name 013]): (i) personal security of [Name 001] (fact 3), (ii) retransmitting orders and directives from [Name 001] to other members of the structure (fact 3), (iii) stockpiling of weapons (facts 4.13, 6.6); [Name 015]: (i) providing support to his sons [Name 004] and [Name 022], in the functions assigned to them (fact 3); (ii) possession, storage, and custody of weapons (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6). Not included in this list is the matter of handling money derived from drug trafficking, since the a quo concluded that it was constitutive of the crime of money laundering, an aspect that will be analyzed upon hearing the third ground of the appeal filed on behalf of these three defendants. Regarding these functions, the defense considers that they are generic and that circumstances of time, place, and manner are not justified. This Chamber considers that it is not correct. The Public Ministry brought charges against a criminal organization that has as one of its defining features permanence over time, hence the factual account circumscribes the existence of its operation within the period from April 2018 to October 2020. In addition to the above, the principal crime attributed to that organization is drug trafficking, which is characterized by being a permanent crime, whose criminality is maintained over time and continues to be consummated until the unlawful situation ceases; hence the setting of a period as a temporal parameter does not correspond to vagueness or imprecision, but to a circumstance inherent to the criminal phenomenon charged. It is observed that the existence of the organization, the period in which it operated, the places where it developed the principal criminal activity, and its objective, which corresponds to drug trafficking, are delimited in fact 1. Subsequently, in fact 2, the operational model used by the organization was described, in general terms, which consisted mainly of medium-scale trafficking through the distribution of drugs to other criminal organizations, as well as retail sales. Then, fact 3 clearly describes what function each of the defendants assumed within that criminal organization, from which the list of tasks held to be proven is extracted as outlined supra.\n\nFurther on, in fact 4.13, the temporal framework (marco temporal) of the facts is reiterated, along with part of the functions attributed to the three accused persons and the use of their dwelling house as a gathering site for the organization's supplies, and the address of the property is also recorded. We see, then, that the indictment contains sufficient information for the accused persons to understand the charges imputed and, based on that, to be able to exercise their technical and material defense. In indictments of this nature, in which a multiplicity of persons are charged for acts committed under an organized structure, the same precision as in simple crimes is not required, because the complexity, permanence, and division of tasks make it difficult to fix the date, place, and method of each individual act; however, this does not imply that the principle of imputation is violated, because what is essential is that the criminal phenomenon is clearly delimited —time, place, and method— and that the role each of the accused played in the configuration of the crime is described, so that they can understand the conduct attributed to them and thus structure their defense. Regarding the principle of imputation and the case-by-case analysis in its application, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has stated: «Pursuant to what has been described, the requirements of the accusatory document are set forth in Article 303 of the Procedural Code, which stipulates: “Indictment and request for trial. When the Public Prosecutor's Office considers that the investigation provides grounds to submit the accused to public trial, it shall file the indictment requesting the opening of the trial. The indictment must contain: a) The data used to identify the accused. b) The precise and detailed account of the punishable act attributed. c) The substantiation of the indictment, with the expression of the elements of conviction that motivate it. d) The citation of the applicable legal precepts. e) The offer of evidence to be presented at trial. With the indictment, the Public Prosecutor's Office shall forward to the judge the proceedings and evidence in its possession that can be incorporated into the debate.” Consequently, the aforementioned subsection a) of that normative precept holds a significant link to the right of defense and the principle of imputation, since, taking as a starting point the factual circumstances attributed in the prosecutorial reproach, the accused will have the power to materialize their material and technical defense; however, the requirement regarding the determination of temporal, modal, and spatial situations will depend on the type of illegality incriminated to the defendant and the particularities of the case» (Resolution No. 20211459, of 10:27 a.m. on December 9, 2021). Having made the foregoing clear, it must be pointed out that, based on a meticulous examination of the judgment, this Chamber observes that the intellectual foundation outlined by the a quo to support the accreditation of the remaining functions attributed to the accused is adequate, sufficient, and respectful of the rules of sound rational criticism. For these purposes, a multiplicity of evidentiary elements were evaluated, including the testimony of the acting officers, the police reports added to the case file, and a significant number of conversations among the accused persons, captured during various interception orders for telephone communications issued by the judge of the preparatory stage. As part of the modus operandi of the criminal organization prosecuted, the trial court determined that, by virtue of [Name 001] being the leader, the other accused persons deployed an entire security apparatus around him for his personal protection, which was verified from the beginning of the investigation with the first surveillances carried out at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center, where it was observed that several of those investigated, among them [Name 010] and [Name 161], accompanied said subject even to the entrance of the facility, as an escort. This dynamic was maintained throughout the investigation period and also included the participation of [Name 030], who on several occasions drove the vehicles in which [Name 001] was transported; [Name 029] and, of interest at this point in the ruling, the brothers [Name 022] and ([Name 013]). Information in this regard is developed in various sections of the judgment, which allows an understanding that the brothers ([Name 013], [Name 014], [Name 022]) had this function of security, custody, and protection of [Name 001] as a habitual task and not a casual or accidental one.\n\nOn November 2, 2018, according to report IP-320-EN-18, one of those accompaniments to the Centro de Atención Institucional Buen Pastor occurred, to which the a quo referred in the following manner: \"on November 2, 2018, judicial investigators again conducted surveillance at the Centro Penal El Buen Pastor, it being that as a result of the movements observed and furthermore the reflection of that captured by the jurisdictional authority, it was determined that ([Nombre 013]) alias [Nombre 124], was an active member of the criminal structure, as was recorded: 'with which the need observed by us was reflected, in that alias [Nombre 083] had to appear at the site where [Nombre 010] was already located, being the CAI Vilma Curling, likewise [Nombre 083] indicated \"...I'm going to pick up [Nombre 124]...\" which evidenced to us that the subject who arrived as an accompanier in the vehicle with license plate [Valor 045] would be the one identified by the alias [Nombre 124], who as a result of the various surveillances we have conducted, would be the same person for whom the duties of custody and safeguarding of alias [Nombre 084] have been verified, it being so that as a result of the various police information sources as well as the public information contained in various social networks, it was determined that this is [Nombre 013], holder of identification number [Valor 005], who has been recurrently observed in surveillances conducted by us, such as the surveillance conducted in the Heredia sector, [Nombre 056] on April 20, 2018, where he was observed in the company of a third party as well as on June 29 of this year, surveillances that were timely presented to your authority in IP297-EN-18. From the various queries, the following was obtained:..\" (folio 12 report IP-320-EN-18), the photographs inserted in the report on markings having been observed, which form part of the surveillances conducted by the investigators in the vicinity of the Centro Penal El Buen Pastor, it is deemed accredited that it is indeed ([Nombre 013]), that is, it is clearly appreciable that it is the same person that the court has held as the accused during the ongoing trial\" [sic] (cf. folios 479 to 480 of the judgment). There are abundant captures of telephone communications among the accused, including the brothers ([Nombre 013], [Nombre 014], [Nombre 022]), in which they organized to move [Nombre 001] from one place to another. From these, the manner in which these transfers were carried out can, indeed, be reconstructed, which consisted of, while [Nombre 001] was being moved in one of the vehicles used for those purposes together with one of the accused, another or others of them would travel in a different means of transport, ahead on the route. In the case of ([Nombre 013]), some of the most relevant communications taken up again by the judgment in that regard consist of the following: \"From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0037531. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 23:01 hours on May 7, 2019. [Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 124], [Nombre 124] said – come here to the one and pick me up right away, we have to go pick him up now, [Nombre 083] said – deay go ahead man, I'm nearby here, [Nombre 124] said – oh okay I'm leaving now to the one, ready, [Nombre 083] said – go up to the, go up. Communication ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0037548. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 01:04 hours on May 8, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 083], [Nombre 124] said - **all good [Nombre 162]?, well okay, is that [Nombre 163]?, [Nombre 083] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 083] said - which way are you guys coming?, [Nombre 124] said – I'm here at my EBAIS, [Nombre 083] said – yes, here, [Nombre 163] is headed that way because they're in the Corolla, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh uh-huh, what for?, [Nombre 083] said – I don't know, [Nombre 083] said - bridge?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, bridge I'm going, hit it, I'm going, are there any cops?, [Nombre 083] said – no, nothing, [Nombre 124] said – ah good ok, I'm on my way out, how much longer?, [Nombre 083] said – ninety-five, ninety-four, [Nombre 124] said – twenty-four yes, let's go straight, [Nombre 083] said – ninety-four , [Nombre 083] said – fourth, there's room for twenty-four, ninety-four, up top there's only one car and two motorcycles coming, after the motorcycles you can go for it, after the motorcycle you can go for it**, [Nombre 124] said – okay, okay, all good, at eleven, [Nombre 083] said - what at eleven? I have to go to, I have to go to, I have to go pick up and drop off [Nombre 164], [Nombre 124] said – yeah man and then after the crazy hatter, [Nombre 083] said – ah okay okay, [Nombre 124] said – okay you let me know, **[Nombre 001] said on the extra phone – he, the hatter will let you know**; they say goodbye. Call ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0038927. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 16:42 hours on May 09, 2019. [Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 124], [Nombre 083] said – **dude, there’s a woman going down here on the main road downwards, towards Gara, towards the Power downwards, [Nombre 124] said – from the Power uh-huh, [Nombre 083] said - should I watch towards Uruca or what?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, send one down and come back down again, but right now, go ahead and go down right now. Go up and come back down like crazy, [Nombre 083] said – yes, but hit up your little brother to see if they come up from there or if they head left where they are or what**, [Nombre 124] said – that guy is busy, [Nombre 083] said - what about [Nombre 109] man?, [Nombre 124] said – I already sent [Nombre 109] to the corner, [Nombre 083] said – yeah that's why, keep an eye out for [Nombre 109] to tell you, man yeah, he took Garavito or he went by the school, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 083] said – but call him right now because he was already going down and by now he should almost be arriving where he is […]. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0038932. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 16:47 hours on May 09, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 124], [Nombre 124] said – already here I go, plaza, [Nombre 083] said – mae but that Ofera watch here to turn at AyA, at AyA, at the [Nombre 166], [Nombre 124] said – huh?, [Nombre 083] said – I'm going to turn here at the [Nombre 166] just barely but shoot I need to locate the one that was here mae, [Nombre 124] said – go ahead, [Nombre 083] said – I need to locate her to see if she went up or went to the, shoot but surely [Nombre 109] is there on the corner mae, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 083] said – that's why, and how come he couldn't see her?, [Nombre 124] said – because he was just leaving, [Nombre 083] said – hey mae, [Nombre 124] said – he's just arriving, [Nombre 083] said – and now yeah, now I have to suck it up because now I have to look for her damn it, to see if she went via Garabito or to see if, shoot man, that fucking useless piece of shit who's no good for anything, there are two here, two cops but they are obviously the ones who are there watching at the entrance of Gara, [Nombre 124] said – walking, [Nombre 083] said – yes, on the right hand side, before entering Gara, [Nombre 124] said – yes yes those don't matter, [Nombre 083] said – before entering Gara, here I go entering Gara to see if, if what, if she's parked here or she left or that fucking useless son of a bitch who's no good for anything, and you didn't chew him out, no?, [Nombre 124] said – I told him what he's up to, you're fucking up then you be here on top of everything, well there, [Nombre 083] said – here I come through Gara and all clear, [Nombre 124] said – well here I am going to enter, no longer, [Nombre 083] said – huh?\n\n[Nombre 124] said – I'm at the traffic light, [Nombre 083] said – ok, I'm going to go up here and I'll go back in there via the main road and arrive at the entrance of Gara, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 083] said – that fucking useless motherfucker, I didn't see [Nombre 109] mae here, [Nombre 124] said – here I am, [Nombre 083] said – now heading here, heading to the main road, to see if she's at the guardhouse, [Nombre 001] said extra telephone – mae and tattoo that guy more, [Nombre 124] said – it's just that I still, [Nombre 001] said extra telephone – nobody is bothering him mae, [Nombre 124] said – it's just that I still, [Nombre 001] said extra telephone – and nobody is bothering him mae, [Nombre 001] said – the guy sends everyone outside to [Nombre 124], only this guy and big [Nombre 124] were there and he was listening to music mae, (unintelligible), [Nombre 124] said – here I am, they're coming, I'm almost entering, [Nombre 083] said – I'm already arriving here at the, at the entrance of the guardhouse, [Nombre 124] said – go ahead, here I'm almost entering [Nombre 001] said extra telephone – (unintelligible) motherfucker, (unintelligible), a tire damn it, [Nombre 083] said – the guardhouse is empty, [Nombre 124] said – all calm there, [Nombre 083] said – it's empty mae, [Nombre 124] said – here I'm entering now, [Nombre 083] said – ok I am already arriving here at the entrance of Gara, [Nombre 124] said – (unintelligible) I'm going here, [Nombre 083] said – those cops are moving downwards, [Nombre 124] said – oh good here I go, [Nombre 083] said – is she coming already? [Nombre 124] said – ha, here I go, but slowly slowly, here I go slowly slowly, [Nombre 083] said – this side, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 083] said – ha, [Nombre 124] said – yes, all clear?, [Nombre 083] said – yes […]” (Highlighting does not correspond to the original. Cf. folios 506 to 509 of the judgment). It is clear that who was accompanying [Nombre 001] when these recordings were produced was ([Nombre 013]), alias “[Nombre 124]” and that [Nombre 029], alias “[Nombre 083]” was alerting about the status of the route. Furthermore, one of the purposes of this dynamic is evident, specifically to alert about the police presence, so that the means of transport of alias “[Nombre 084]” would not be identified. Other communications recorded in the judgment and that refer to similar events correspond to sequence 0255028, from line [Valor 097], produced at 20:46 hours; from the intercepted line [Valor 098] sequences 0318379, at 20:53, 0318381, at 20:56 and 0318389, at 21:07 hours; from the intercepted line [Valor 099], sequences 0323442, at 21:00 hours; 0323443, at 21:04;\n\n0323450, at 21:22 hours; 0323451, at 21:26 and from line [Valor 064], sequence 0027474, at 21:10 hours; although they are not the only ones.\n\nIn the case of [Name 022], the evidence analyzed by the lower court (a quo) shows a similar dynamic, regarding the protection of [Name 001]. By way of example, the communication from telephone line [Value 077], with sequence number 0025160, at 12:42 p.m. on April 25, 2019, in which [Name 029], identified by his alias “[Name 083],” and [Name 022], identified by the nickname “[Name 123],” share information about the state of the place where [Name 001] would be traveling, whom the investigated parties refer to as “ese mae”: “[Name 083] spoke [Name 123], [Name 123] said – [Name 083] said – mae get on the corner each of you get going because ese mae is already coming nearby mae, [Name 123] said – I’m going mae, [Name 083] said – one on the lower corner and the other on the upper corner but get going because they are already arriving here in La Uruca mae your little brother forgot to tell you guys mae, then you’re not there, [Name 123] said – okay. Communication ends” (cf. f. 506 of the judgment). It should be clarified that the way of referring to [Name 001], as “ese mae,” does not correspond to a speculation or presumption of the lower court (a quo), but rather is amply referred to on several occasions throughout the judgment, since it was able to determine that it is one of the protection mechanisms used by the group to avoid revealing the identity of said subject. This Chamber verified that the inference is correct, because on several occasions they refer to him in that way, for example, in the event that occurred on December 3, 2019, when administrative police officers apprehended [Name 001] to transfer him to a police station, which caused a significant flow of communications among the investigated parties, in which it was mentioned that they took “a ese mae” —information in that regard will be recorded further on—. Another example of [Name 022]’s participation in transfers of [Name 001] is evident from sequence 0043994, generated with the intercepted line [Value 077], at 3:32 p.m. on May 14, 2019: “[Name 083] spoke with [Name 123], [Name 083] said – mae go like crazy to the corner, ese mae is coming now, [Name 123] said – ok, [Name 083] said – and call [Name 109] mae and you guys go like crazy because they are already coming here through La Uruca mae, [Name 123] said – ok. Communication ends” (cf. f. 510 of the judgment). From the foregoing, what stands out, as a relevant fact, is the joint and concerted participation among the brothers ([Name 013], [Name 014], [Name 022]) with [Name 029], who as already indicated was the main person responsible for the transport and supply of drugs to other organizations, which proves that they worked with a common purpose, according to the functions assigned to each of them —throughout this ruling, an extensive development of this division of tasks is made—. The analyzed ruling also recounts several communications among the brothers ([Name 022], [Name 014], [Name 013]), in which the collusion of both is denoted, in the transmission of information about the state of the places through which [Name 001] had to circulate, who was generally accompanied by [Name 013]. As an example of the foregoing, the following conversations: “From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0146523. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 5:20 p.m. on April 11, 2019. [Name 124] called [Name 123] and said – go ahead, [Name 123] said – hello, [Name 124] said – get going, [Name 123] said – okay I’m going I’m going I’m going, with [Name 109]. Communication ends. From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0146527. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 5:28 p.m. on April 11, 2019. [Name 124] called [Name 123], [Name 123] said – there are only a few cars because they have a party there in front where, where that son of a bitch [carepicha] I think, [Name 124] said – but can you get through there?, [Name 123] said – yes obviously obviously obviously, everything is fine but there are a few cars, oh okay, yeah, to turn around well it's that some guy left a car parked across there, move move that car, get going because I'm already here, [Name 166], [Name 123] said – okay I'm going, [Name 124] said – move that car. Communication ends. From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0146530. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 5:29 p.m. on April 11, 2019. [Name 123] called [Name 124] and said – now now, everything's fine, I already moved the little car, [Name 123] said – yeah, he's already moving it, [Name 124] said – oh okay, [Name 123] said something that is not understood, [Name 124] said – okay okay okay, he already moved it […] From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0148839. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 6:01 p.m. on April 13, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 124] called [Nombre 123] and said – take care of la uno, [Nombre 123] said – huh?, [Nombre 124] said – take care of la uno, [Nombre 123] said – okay I'm on my way, I'll get to you, [Nombre 124] said – with nothing, with nothing, [Nombre 123] said – ok ok, [Nombre 124] said – get going. Communication ends […] From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0455823. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 13:11 hours on May 3, 2019. [Nombre 123] called [Nombre 124], [Nombre 123] said – are they close yet?, [Nombre 124] said something unintelligible, [Nombre 123] said – all good all good, nothing can be seen, man, well nothing has been seen for a while; they say goodbye. Communication ends […] From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0455918. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 13:32 hours on May 5, 2019. [Nombre 123] called [Nombre 124], [Nombre 123] said – where are you?, [Nombre 124] said – I'm around here, [Nombre 123] said – good good, I'll call you, [Nombre 124] said – I'm going to throw myself on the corner then, or not?, [Nombre 123] said – uh, yes, call [Nombre 109], [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 123] said – done. Communication ends […] From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0457280. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 21:16 hours on May 13, 2019. [Nombre 004] alias “[Nombre 124]” spoke with [Nombre 123], [Nombre 123] said – one was going up slowly, surely right now it's going past where [Nombre 189] is, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 123] said – okay. From [Valor 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0114596. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 086]. This call was made at 18:57 hours on May 21, 2019. [Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 123], [Nombre 123] said to him – What the hell, what time are you coming?, [Nombre 124] said – watch the hole, on the corner, [Nombre 123] said – man it's raining, dude, [Nombre 124] said – it's raining. [Nombre 124] said – find yourself some flip-flops, something, and stand there, [Nombre 123] said and where are you guys?, [Nombre 124] said – I'm just arriving, [Nombre 123] said – here at the hole?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 123] said – which way are they coming, [Nombre 124] said – by the slope, [Nombre 123] said – by the slope, motherfucker, they're coming really close now, well I'm going to see if I go out, [Nombre 124] said – tell [Nombre 109] to stop, [Nombre 123] said – I don't think so, that motherfucker, [Nombre 124] said – well okay. Communication ends [sic]. Now, this deployment of actions by the accused to provide security for [Nombre 001], more than an act of submission or servility, notoriously had a more important objective, which was to ensure his freedom of movement and personal safety. A large part of the communications captured refer to the presence of police forces and it is evident that these are what they seek to avoid. And so it is that on December 3, 2018, an event occurred —already mentioned— in which [Nombre 001] was approached by officers of the Fuerza Pública, precisely because the security device failed. The event was documented in report IP-033-EN-2019 and is extensively developed in the judgment, in the section “Hechos en contra de [Nombre 010] con relación a tráfico de drogas y con autorización de [Nombre 001]” (cfr. f. 456 of the judgment), which, despite having another of the defendants as the main subject, also refers to aspects that link ([Nombre 013]). In said section, the following communications were recorded: from the intercepted line [Valor 097], sequence 0255028; at 20:46 hours; from the intercepted line [Valor 098] sequences 0318379, at 20:53, 0318381, at 20:56 and 0318389, at 21:07 hours; from the intercepted line [Valor 099], sequences 0323442, at 21:00 hours; 0323443, at 21:04; 0323450, at 21:22 hours, 0323451, at 21:26 and from the line [Valor 064], sequence 0027474, at 21:10 hours. These consist of interactions among the members of the criminal organization who find themselves in a state of alert due to the apprehension of [Nombre 001].\n\nDue to its relevance, sequence 0255028 stands out, in which [Nombre 001] himself refers to a third party about the police action: «[Nombre 001] called subject and said – man, subject said – good evening young man, how are you?, [Nombre 001] said – man, don't cut me off, don't cut me off, don't cut me off, subject said – ok, [Nombre 001] said – it's that they are taking me out escorted from La León to the delegation but I don't know which delegation, supposedly the regional director wants to talk to me, they're going to take me out I don't know why here don't cut me off because I'm going to go monitored to wherever they take me, subject said – ok, but who are they taking you with?, [Nombre 001] said – the GAO the police, I'm going alone in my car they're coming on motorcycles behind me, subject said – ok, anything that implicates you?, [Nombre 001] said – absolutely nothing man I'm clean, subject said – which delegation?, [Nombre 001] said – I don't know, it's that here I'm going behind them they're probably taking me to Tibás or I don't know where, they're telling me to leave, subject said – but are you going with one of them?, [Nombre 001] said – no I'm going alone in my car, they already searched the car completely, subject said – ok, and where is the delegation?, [Nombre 001] said – in Tibás by the Saprissa stadium and one is by the Mas x Menos in Tibás, subject said – but you don't know which one?, [Nombre 001] said – I don't know which one because here they're taking me I don't know which one I'm going to, subject said – ok but you're not going as, [Nombre 001] said – I'm going in a caravan, I have like ten motorcycles about five are behind me and five in front, subject said – ok but you're not going as a detainee, [Nombre 001] said – no no I'm driving my car, they already checked my license and a cop who checked me said everything's thirty-three but I don't know you know they're probably going to set the dogs on me and stuff, subject said – no no no we agree but nothing that implicates you?, [Nombre 001] said – absolutely man, subject said – ok go because you are not currently being treated as a detainee, if there had been any type of capture and remand you would immediately be handcuffed and they would be taking you in a paddy wagon, ok? so let's see what the man wants to talk to you about see because that type of transfer is not common see, third subject out of phone said – or tell him if he needs a lawyer to see what we come up with, second subject said – see, now, if you need some lawyer to show up or something now to see what, [Nombre 001] said – it's that look I'm talking because I'm in my car, second subject said – that's correct, [Nombre 001] said – but right now they're going to take my phone away as soon as we arrive wherever they take me I don't know where they're taking me, second subject said – obviously, [Nombre 001] said – look the other time they transferred me like that when I was in a place in Belén and they took me and searched the car and all that crap because well because one is one and that's it, third subject out of phone said – but then what do you want? do you want us to find a lawyer or just go for it?, [Nombre 001] said – it's that I don't even know where they're taking me dumbass, second subject said – if you say there's a delegation by Saprissa, and there's another… [Nombre 001] said – there's one by Saprissa and one by the Mas x Menos in Tibás but I don't know which one they're taking me to, if they're taking me over there but if they take me somewhere else I don't know, second subject said – ok, by whose order are you going?, [Nombre 001] said – uh no one's the public force is taking me just being guarded, second subject said – yes yes yes but didn't you ever ask by whose order?, [Nombre 001] said – man, what for?, they don't even let you talk how are they going to tell me all those protocols, I'm not a lawyer, second subject said – ok, third subject out of phone said – that's why so what, do we need to find a lawyer or what?, second subject said well let's see if well if I move to see what, [Nombre 001] said – well just stay there in the meantime, stay there in the meantime until my phone gets cut off, second subject said – ok perfect, [Nombre 001] said – I'm talking on speakerphone because I have those guys watching me closely understand so I'm talking with the windows up, third subject out of phone said – do you need me to top up your balance or what?, [Nombre 001] said – no no no no no no I have a plan I think it holds up, second subject said – ok, how far do you think you are from the destination?, [Nombre 001] said – well I figure if it's not Copey it's Tibás and it's about five or six minutes but I don't know, I'm going to find out more or less where they're taking me, second subject said – well ok, don't hang up, third subject out of phone said – uh, doesn't Cafecito move at this hour, huh?, second subject said – I'll see if I call him, no but it's that I have to wait for him, third subject out of phone said – no no get the number from there and we'll call him from another phone, [Nombre 001] said – but I think I'm going to Tibás because I'm already here by Yorente in Tibás, third subject out of phone said – yes because it's better that when he arrives, I'm at such and such point so Cafesito can already head there, even better if possible so he arrives right away and sees when they see that he arrived and that the lawyer arrived immediately, second subject said – give it that small window, third subject out of phone said – since there it's just a matter of getting the number easy, [Nombre 001] said – man if I tell you to hang up hang up you hear, third subject said – ok, [Nombre 001] said – if I tell you to hang up hang up because I'm here see dumbass in plain sight and I can't hang up because the phone light shows then to play dumb now, anyway I'm not detained or anything, I'm driving my car probably just crap as always well I haven't done anything, a guy was going to let me go but another guy came and said no, third subject out of phone said – bothering for nothing they get, [Nombre 001] said – yes another guy came and said no man you have to come with us well what am I going to do, look I'm telling you I'm at the traffic light at my plot in Tibás I'm going to tell you now which way I'm going to go, second subject said – ok, [Nombre 001] said – I think towards the Mas x Menos in Tibás, next to Mas x Menos there it is, second subject said – yes, third subject said – he's calling the lawyer right now, send him a message here on WhatsApp right now, just tell him to answer, [Nombre 001] said – well I arrived it's the one in Tibás next to Mas x Menos, second subject said – ok. Communication ends» [sic] (Highlighting does not correspond to the original. Cf. pages 371 to 372 of the judgment). Although this communication does not detail, the following ones clarify that [Nombre 013], to whom they refer by the alias «[Nombre 124]», was the one accompanying [Nombre 001] at the moment when Public Force officers intercepted him. In that sense, sequence 0318381, from which it is also derived that they refer to [Nombre 001] as «that dude»: «[Nombre 010] spoke with female, from said conversation the following information of interest was obtained […] [Nombre 010] said – well nothing that they just took that dude away, female said – what?, [Nombre 010] said – they took him away, female said – where?, [Nombre 010] said – well like well I don't know, there everything, female said – love love your audio cut out, [Nombre 010] said – that they took that dude away, female said – but where?, [Nombre 010] said – well I don't know, female said – oh I don't believe you [Nombre 010], [Nombre 010] said – yes but don't say anything don't say anything and don't tell the other one anything, female said – I'm not going to tell her anything, are you crazy?, surely she's going to find out, [Nombre 010] said – yes there they took him away, he was with [Nombre 124], female said – and he went with [Nombre 124]?, [Nombre 010] said – well yes they got in the car I think some buddies got in there and took off all the motorcycles were behind him, female said – I don't believe you, jonde said – he's going for mugshots, female said – my love do you have me on speaker?, [Nombre 010] said – no, female said – love that's weird, huh?, [Nombre 010] said – yes my love surely they're on a tour, female said – surely now they're going to beat him up like they always do; they talk about matters of no interest to the investigation.\n\nCommunication ends» [sic] (cf. f. 365 of the judgment. Emphasis supplied). Furthermore, sequence 0323442: «[Name 168] called [Name 083] and said to her - what would happen if you don't arrive?, [Name 083] said – well look ma'am [Name 168] it's that they nabbed us and they're taking us for booking to take our photos, [Name 168] said something that is not understood, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 168] said - what what happened?, [Name 083] said – they just detained us to take us to take our booking photos but it's something normal, [Name 168] said – and for a while now right, [Name 083] said – just just if you could see the shitload of cops that are there and nobody told us a damn thing, [Name 168] said – but are you guys coming clean right?, [Name 083] said – ah no yeah yeah yeah yeah everything's fine everything's fine, [Name 168] said – okay, [Name 083] said – okay, [Name 168] said - and who are the ones detained like that?, [Name 083] said – uhhh [Name 124], him and they just let me go but they're about to let them go, [Name 168] said – oh okay, [Name 083] said – just routine you know how nasty they are, [Name 168] said – uh-huh; they say goodbye. Communication ends» (cf. f. 365 of the judgment. Emphasis supplied). On the other hand, the need to guarantee the personal integrity and even the life of [Name 001] was reflected in the judgment, in the section «Regarding [Name 030] and the acts of drug trafficking», which documented an attack against the alias «[Name 084]» and his companions, which occurred at the Tienda Monge business, located in Zapote, in the vicinity of the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales. On that occasion «[Name 084]» was with [Name 030] and [Name 022]; this latter individual was even wounded in the event and, despite that, he did not want to file any complaint which, as the a quo rightly pointed out, is not strange in criminal organizations, so as not to leave a trace of their clashes. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the body of evidence set forth in the judgment effectively allows for the determination that the defendants [Name 022] and ([Name 013]) had as one of their functions within the criminal organization, to provide security, by way of escort and custody, to [Name 001]. Furthermore, the judgment explains that part of the measures adopted by the members of the organization to protect [Name 001] was to prevent him from interacting directly with the remaining members of the organization, which is why he used intermediaries for the transmission of information. On this subject, the judgment states: «On the other hand it is worth recalling a call between [Name 029] and his romantic partner [Name 026], within the context of the drug deliveries and receipt of money for the sales of narcotics to the organization of [Name 099] (facts already substantiated) in which the alias “[Name 083]” told his partner: “right now I set [Name 124] to, like, reporting to me so to speak, and I told him I'm arriving now I'm going so he said okay and I told him because I told those people that, I told [Name 136] that the people already had the money right for the babies and the stuff, female said – uh-huh, [Name 083] said – so then I said well that, at the same time as always I mean at twelve o'clock, female said – uh-huh, [Name 083] said – so then I told him umm, I told him that they already have the money that at what time and I don't know what so he told me tell them at the same time as always you know, female said – uh-huh, [Name 083] said – so then I go oh well if that's fine then I get to the neighborhood and get lost then he said okay...”, clearly reflecting the deliveries of what they identify as \"BEBES\" or \"BABYS\" to refer to the packages of cocaine hydrochloride, just as it was Mr. [Name 001] the person to whom the alias [Name 083] and the rest of the accused would have to report all the different proceedings carried out, but beyond them in this case [Name 001] alias [Name 136] is informed through the alias “[Name 124]”, that is to say that the alias “[Name 124]” was one of the persons known to be in the company of the leader» [sic] (cf. f. 484 of the judgment). As for that intermediary work, the judgment revisits the communication with sequence number 0337010, from the telephone line [Value 100], generated at 20:42 hours on February 4, 2019. «[Name 109] called [Name 124], [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124], [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124] said – go ahead, [Name 109] said - buddy where are you?, [Name 124] said – inside why?, do you need something?, [Name 109] said – man tell that dude if I can go over for a bit, [Name 124] said – okay, [Name 109] said – tell him tell him so I can go right away, [Name 109] said – (mentions something that is not understood) bastard maybe, [Name 109] said – ah, but tell him man so that so we can see if he says I can go or not man because maybe he says no or something like that because I have to be here, [Name 124] said – just ask asshole come on, [Name 109] said – ah, [Name 124] said – come on come on ask, [Name 109] said – no man because then he tells me no don't go stay there and he chews me out, tell him man, [Name 124] said – what a pussy then you wimp out, they continue talking without interest. Communication ends» (cf. f. 499 of the judgment). Along the same lines, further on, the lower court ruling refers «in the call identified with sequence 0037847 the possibility of the delivery and/or receipt of some vehicle by another organization was detailed, using for this a contact with a subject they identify with the alias [Name 263], this by stating “[Name 083] said – or maybe I do go look for him again at the house, [Name 001] said off phone – have him arrive with his car man, have him arrive walking man, [Name 124] told [Name 083] – arrive walking, and he will take him in his car, [Name 083] said – okay I'm going, ok, [Name 124] said – get going, but now...”» (cf. f. 518 of the judgment).\n\nFurthermore, the police report IP-033-EN-19 is revisited, in which, as a point of interest, it describes: \"As has been mentioned to your authority in the various preliminary reports submitted, we are facing a fully identified criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking, where its members fulfill very marked roles and functions of logistics and coordination of illicit operations, led by [Nombre 001] alias [Nombre 084], who uses different members to relay his orders and thus avoid the use of cellular devices to avoid leaving possible telephone traces locatable by us and binding in the event of any eventual police action against him, having trusted men whom he uses to relay the necessary orders for the commission of the illicit act, being [Nombre 007] alias [Nombre 109] (user of the telephone line [Valor 100] and [Valor 101]) as well as a subject identified as ([Nombre 013]) alias [Nombre 124] (user of the telephone line [Valor 102] and [Valor 095]) those in charge of transferring all directives to the other members of the narco structure, being men who would be most of the time at the service of [Nombre 001] and even provide safeguarding and protection of the leader of the criminal organization\" [sic] (cf. f. 489 to 490 of the judgment). To the above, it is added that the precautions of [Nombre 001], of not having telephone interactions that could compromise him, obeys a precaution against possible wiretaps. In this sense, the trial court reasons: \"The relationship of [Nombre 001] regarding his involvement in criminal activities was reflected in a series of calls captured by the jurisdictional authority, for example sequence 0159832, in which Mr. [Nombre 001] expressed his suspicion of having said telephone service intervened by stating 'it's surely the judge who is recording that damn son of a bitch, female said - who is recording?, [Nombre 001] said – the judge is recording me, because it only shows me that I can't call, it's surely because he already, and I can't even top up because it doesn't give me the top-up option, female said – oh my, they're going to tap my phone man for calling you, what shit, oh god...'\" (cf. fs. 503 to 504 of the judgment). We see then that this function of retransmitting orders from [Nombre 001] to other members of the criminal organization was part of the precautions taken by the members of the criminal organization so that their leader would not be involved in dynamics that could compromise him and generate some responsibility, in the event that some investigation was developed against him. It is important to denote that this function was proven only in the case of ([Nombre 013]), not of his brother [Nombre 022]. In the case of the defendant [Nombre 015], she was attributed, among other functions, those of collaborating with the tasks entrusted to her children and stockpiling weapons in her home. On the matter, various communications captured as a result of the wiretapping also stand out: \"From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0456185. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 12:16 hours on May 11, 2019. [Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 125], [Nombre 125] said – son look, are you guys by any chance coming here?, [Nombre 125] said – look, don't even come close because right now all the (unintelligible) are coming, the little pigs are screwing around man, they are lying down (unintelligible) Jurgen and all those people, the sons of [Nombre 171] from down here threw (unintelligible) at them, those from down here and (unintelligible) went and started calling the law, so you turn back because this is going to get, this, a hornet's nest was stirred up down here, you understand me?, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 125] said – and it's going to become a hornet's nest daddy, I mean this is already a hornet's nest, they already shot at each other and they're going crazy there and if legally this is going to become a hornet's nest then oh well you know that later they follow up on you guys right, well be careful then see I'm warning you, stay alert I'm warning you, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 125] said – okay, be careful, okay, [Nombre 124] said – look, put that phone to charge for me, [Nombre 125] said - which phone daddy?, ha, [Nombre 124] said – an iphone, [Nombre 125] said - which one?, [Nombre 124] said – the iphone, [Nombre 125] said - a big one here, which one?, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 125] said - a pink one?, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, big one, yes, [Nombre 125] said – oh okay, alright, I'll put it to charge for you then daddy, [Nombre 124] said – that's fine, it's the friend's but oh well it's dead, [Nombre 125] said – ha alright, in case they don't know me; they say goodbye. Communication ends. From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0456196. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 15:31 hours on May 11, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 125], [Nombre 125] said – my son, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 125] said – um, I'm just going to tell you a name and catch it on the fly, notice that it was cuervo and with a little toy from the same person from around there, and this is bewitched they say that, that they're going to talk to uncle so that he disappears because they're going to bring, they're going to do a big cleansing, [Nombre 124] said – haaa, [Nombre 125] said – hey, or let's see if he gives them how that is, some support or I don't know what it is, right, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 125] said – I mean, I don't know, I mean, to see what, I mean, like an opinion something like that, [Nombre 125] said – to see if he gives them his opinion that yes, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 125] said – do you understand? I don't know, something like that, [Nombre 124] said – what, what do I see?, [Nombre 125] said – I'm just giving you the wisdom so you know because I come from down there, that they called me to see if I had pills, I told them no but then there I heard the comment (they talk about matters of no interest), minute 00:01:29 [Nombre 125] said – he's coming right now to specify it well for you, dad, [Nombre 124] said – alright, alright, [Nombre 125] said – yes, he's coming right now to specify it well because, well, you know one has to watch one's own back, right. Communication ends. From [Valor 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0106610. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 103]. This call was made at 20:54 hours on May 12, 2019. [Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 125], [Nombre 124] said – mommy, [Nombre 125] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 124] said – wake up [Nombre 022] and have him come quickly with the piece, [Nombre 125] said – but it's not possible, didn't you see there were a bunch on the corner, [Nombre 124] said – what here on the corner?, [Nombre 125] said – uh-huh, right down here, just around the corner there are several, [Nombre 124] said – there's nothing, [Nombre 125] said – did they already leave?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 125] said – well then, put him on it, you watch the entrances, son, have him go quickly (unintelligible), [Nombre 124] said – have him do it, [Nombre 125] said – but have him do it now because there are a bunch of them, but have him do it, daddy, well look daddy, watch the entrance for me, he's coming, right, [Nombre 124] said – here I go, here I go to check at the window. Communication ends […] From [Valor 094]. Call identified with sequence number 0109297. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 103]. This call was made at 19:29 hours on November 17, 2019. [Nombre 013] alias “[Nombre 124]/[Nombre 124]” received a call from [Nombre 015] alias “[Nombre 125]”, user of the telephone line [Valor 103]. [Nombre 004] said -hello, [Nombre 015] said -daddy, [Nombre 004] said -hey, [Nombre 015] said -um, catch it, a bunch of little candies, right, [Nombre 004] said -yes, [Nombre 015] said -ok, just be careful because they're coming around here, around there, and everywhere, [Nombre 004] said alright, [Nombre 015] said -well be careful, [Nombre 004] said -um, in all, [Nombre 015] said -yes, you too, [Nombre 004] said -alright, [Nombre 015] said -may God be with you, [Nombre 004] said -amen, [Nombre 015] said -alright” [sic] (cfr. fs. 525 to 527, 545 of the judgment). The foregoing communications reveal that, effectively, [Nombre 015], who was identified by the alias “[Nombre 125]”, was on the lookout for any police action that could compromise his children, to whom he provided information in that regard so that they could evade it. Adding to the foregoing is the communication captured a few lines earlier, in which the defendant mentions that in her home there is “galeta,” thereby evidencing her knowledge, but above all her conspiracy, in lending her home for the storage of the organization's goods. Finally, regarding the participation of the three defendants, one of the functions attributed to them was confirmed in the raid, search, and seizure carried out at their home located in [...], on October 13, 2020. On that occasion, among other items of interest, were located: a Beretta brand pistol-type firearm with a filed-off serial number, with stamped number 666 on the barrel part, with a black magazine containing 15 unfired 9mm caliber rounds; a Taurus brand model TF056301 black 9x19 caliber pistol-type firearm, with a black magazine and 16 unfired 9mm caliber rounds; a Glock brand model PFA677 black 9x19 caliber pistol-type firearm, with a black magazine with a 16-round capacity and two black magazines each with a 30-round capacity containing 21 unfired 9x19 caliber rounds; a Beretta brand model 1108590 black 9mm caliber pistol-type firearm, with a black 15-round magazine containing 15 unfired rounds and a sound suppressor; three hundred eighty-nine unfired 7.62 x 39 caliber rounds; three hundred twenty unfired 5.56 caliber rounds, 3 magazines and one extra-capacity magazine; a .40 caliber pistol magazine with a 28-round capacity containing 13 unfired .40 caliber rounds. Again, under the logic of the division of functions set forth in the accusation and confirmed in the judgment, this stockpile of weapons belonging to the defendants is closely related to the security and custody function that the brothers ([Nombre 013], [Nombre 014], [Nombre 022]) performed within the criminal organization. Information in that sense also derives from the telephone interceptions, namely: “From [Valor 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0122488. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 086]. This call was made at 19:05 hours on May 4, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 004], alias “[Nombre 124]”, spoke with a subject identified as [Nombre 123]. [Nombre 124] said – man, [Nombre 123] said – what?, [Nombre 124] said – what happened with the iron axe?, [Nombre 123] said – I already put it away, [Nombre 124] said – oh good, [Nombre 123] said – yeah upstairs, an unknown subject on the phone said – man, he hasn't put anything away, the iron is right here. Communication ends” (cf. f. 533 of the judgment). On this point, it is recalled that, during the first surveillance operation conducted by the police on the investigated individuals, specifically on April 3, 2018, a firearm that [Nombre 010] was carrying was confiscated. Indeed, on that occasion, one of the security deployments of the investigated individuals regarding [Nombre 001] was detected, as he appeared at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center to visit his romantic partner. Furthermore, in sequence 0106610, [Nombre 013] spoke with his mother and asked her to wake up his brother so he could go to the site where “the iron” was located, which, in colloquial language, is a way of referring to firearms, as the a quo correctly pointed out. From the foregoing account, in this Chamber's opinion, it is possible to consider clearly and sufficiently proven the functions attributed by the Public Prosecutor's Office and confirmed in the judgment, to the three defendants who have been alluded to —with the exception already stated—. In summary, of the constituent facts of drug storage that the trial court considered proven against the defendants [Nombre 015], [Nombre 022], and ([Nombre 013]), only the one located on May 19, 2019, was adequately verified. The remaining functions: security, stockpiling of weapons, and transmission of information under the terms that have been described —and with the exception of the transmission of orders by [Nombre 022] to third parties—, were duly proven. Consequently, the attribution of criminal liability as co-perpetrators in the crime of aggravated drug trafficking for the three defendants, under the terms set forth in the judgment, has not undergone any variation, with the clarifications made in this pronouncement. We must now address certain specific complaints from the defense. The appeal alleged that the judgment contains a biased and partial analysis of the evidence. This claim is dismissed. As has been noted, the a quo took into consideration a significant amount of evidence, from which it derived the three accused persons' membership in the criminal organization and the functions each performed. The correctness of the interpretation of the evidence carried out by the first-instance body is reserved for the appellate authority, and it is the reason why this Chamber has determined that, of the events described in points 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16, only one of them can be proven, specifically point 4.15. While the interpretation by the trial court is plausible, other equally reasonable theories cannot be ruled out to explain what the interlocutors were talking about in the conversations that support the drug storage events that could not be proven. The foregoing is because the conversation on which fact 4.14 of the accusatory instrument is based is not clear, nor does it provide sufficient data, nor was it linked to any other piece of evidence that would allow other connotations of what was expressed to be ruled out. Meanwhile, the communication offered as proof of point 4.16 actually reinforces the event outlined in point 4.15. The foregoing, however, does not in any way modify the conclusion that the accused are responsible for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering. The defense's complaint seems to stem more from a subjective disagreement with the ruling because it does not align with their clients' interests, a circumstance that is understandable, but which does not in itself detract from the judgment in any way. This Chamber, in exercising its comprehensive review of the decision, was able to verify that the analysis of the evidence was, for the most part, adequate. The aspects with which we disagree with the a quo’s reasoning stem from differences of opinion that are inherent to a procedural model such as the one at hand, but in no way reflect favoritism or bias by the trial court towards any of the parties. The defense claims that substantial parts of the testimonies were omitted, however, this claim was made in a generic manner, without detailing what those omitted aspects were. This Court, in its comprehensive review of the pronouncement, could not determine any circumstance of that nature. The judicial investigators in charge of the inquiries gave a broad and detailed account of the investigative measures conducted regarding these defendants, without noting any relevant information that favored them and that was excluded from the analysis. Furthermore, their accounts were supported by the reports added to the case file. If the defense's intention was directed at establishing that no drugs were confiscated from their clients, that is a detail that was evident from the analysis carried out by the a quo, and which in no way diminishes the possibility of attributing criminal liability to them. As noted, the criminal organization of which the three defendants are a part supplied drugs to other criminal organizations, and it was from the confiscations carried out in those parallel cases that the material proof of the drug transshipments could be obtained. The evaluation of those confiscations is completely valid and feasible in a system of free evaluation of evidence such as ours, so no error is observed in the a quo’s examination for having considered that evidence to attribute criminal liability to the accused. No violation of the principle of correlation between the accusation and the judgment has been verified. The accused facts and those considered proven are, in essence, the same, save for the correction of a material error already referenced. In the intellectual analysis, the a quo undertook a broad examination of the evidence, from which it derived the existence of the organization, its functioning, and the task each defendant performed. No noted circumstance overflows the criminal phenomenon described in the prosecutorial accusation, so it is not true that the defendants were punished for facts not contained in the accusation.\n\nIn other sections of this pronouncement, it has been noted that the intellectual analysis is broad and contemplates a multiplicity of circumstances, because the dynamics of the investigation imposed the need to understand how the organization behaved in general and each of the accused in particular, for which reason a multiplicity of events were reconstructed, although not all are criminal, as occurs, for example, with the action of bringing food to the Buen Pastor Penal Center for the romantic partner of [Name 001]. Such a situation is typical of a proceeding of this nature and does not imply, as the defense states, that there is a conviction for uncharged facts. At all times, the intellectual analysis revolved around the accreditation of the existence of a criminal organization and the determination of the role that each accused played within it, which is consistent with the prosecutorial accusation, hence the defect alleged by the defense is not observed, which in any case was invoked in a generic manner. Based on the foregoing, in the opinion of this Chamber, the appropriate course is to dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, since, as already indicated, although some errors were verified in the analysis of the evidence, these are not of such relevance as to lead to releasing [Name 013], [Name 022], and [Name 015] from criminal liability or that justify a remand to the trial stage. Based on the foregoing, the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Josué Alvarado Zúñiga are hereby dismissed.\n\nXVI. Third ground of appeal filed by M.A. Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused [Name 013], [Name 022], and [Name 015]. He alleges \"Disagreement with the factual determination due to violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment and the adversarial principle regarding the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales)\" [sic]. He indicates that the intellectual reasoning considered uncharged circumstances with respect to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). He argues that the prosecution did not charge said criminal offense against his clients. He highlights that the accusation contains some isolated phrases referring to the crime in question, but in the case of his clients, their participation regarding that criminal activity was not described. He reviews the second statement of fact of the accusation and indicates that it does not describe a concrete action by his clients, but rather the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) in a general manner. He states that the third statement of fact narrates the functions of each member of the organization and attributes to his clients activities related to drug trafficking, but not to money laundering (legitimación de capitales). He points out that in the fifth statement of fact, the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is suggested, but his clients are not mentioned when individualizing the actions carried out by each accused. He asserts that the sixth statement of fact mentions them, regarding the seizures made during the raids, but does not meet the minimum requirements for charging a crime and the Public Ministry, in a bad practice, attempts to portray the seizures derived from the raids as \"accusatory of a crime,\" lacking the necessary verbs to define an action relevant to criminal law. He considers that, given this scenario, his clients could not be convicted of an uncharged crime. He asserts that the adversarial principle was also violated, because in the acquittals section of the judgment, [Name 033] and [Name 007] were released from liability, who were in the same position as his clients. As a grievance, he highlights that his clients were convicted, despite the fact that the judgment lacks details regarding the circumstances of time, manner, and place, coupled with the fact that the decision is not consistent with the charged factual framework, thereby violating the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment, due process, and causing grievance with the imposition of a prison sentence, which is illegitimate. He requests that the ground be granted and the accused be acquitted. Alternatively, that a remand for trial be ordered. Furthermore, he requests the release of his clients, since the pretrial detention measure was imposed as a consequence of the judgment. The ground is dismissed. After analyzing the claim, this Court concludes that the defense is not correct. The factual framework that was held to be accredited in relation to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) consists of the following: \"1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which focused its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Tibás Canton; as well as in some points in the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; zones in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: […] The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for this purpose the use of various means to that end. 3. This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal manner, so each of its members performed specific functions, all directed towards a single end, the commercialization of drugs and the safeguarding of the group over the territories in which they conducted the illicit activity.\n\nAs indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows: […] [Nombre 013]: member of the criminal group, who was one of the trusted persons of the leader [Nombre 001], whose responsibilities included, among other functions, taking charge of the latter's personal security, as well as carrying out custody duties for the drug transports executed by the criminal group; he was also one of those responsible for transmitting the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001] to the remaining members of the organization; on behalf of the latter, he supervised and personally executed the collection and storage of the monies obtained from the drug trafficking activity, for which purpose he used the property owned by his mother as a \"warehouse\" or storage center for illicit supplies of the criminal organization. [Nombre 022]: member of the criminal group, who, in association with the accused ([Nombre 013]), was responsible, among other functions, for the personal security of the latter, as well as for carrying out custody duties for the drug transports executed by the criminal group; he was also another of those responsible for transmitting the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001] to the remaining members of the organization; he executed, under the direction and supervision of the leader, the collection and storage of the monies obtained from the drug trafficking activity […] [Nombre 015]: member of the narco structure, whose responsibilities included, among other functions, providing support in the tasks assigned by the criminal leader to the accused [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022], primarily in the distribution of drug shipments and the collection of the monies derived from the activity inherent to drug trafficking; she was also one of the persons designated in the organization to store and guard supplies belonging to the organization in her home, primarily drug shipments, money, and weapons […] 4.13 As part of the distribution of functions among the members of the criminal group, the group's hierarchy allowed, during the period from 2018 until October 2020, for members of the criminal organization to carry out various functions aimed at the possession and storage of supplies ranging from drugs, money, and firearms; these actions were delegated by the leader of the criminal group [Nombre 001] to the accused [Nombre 022], ([Nombre 013]), and his mother [Nombre 015], and for such purposes they used the dwelling located in [...] , with the accused receiving financial remuneration as payment for this storage action […] 5. During the investigation period from April 2018 until October 2020, the Criminal Organization comprised of the investigated individuals [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 161] (absent), [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046] (deceased), [Nombre 050] (absent), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], as a consequence of the significant illicit profits produced from the serious activity of trafficking and sale of narcotics, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transfer property of economic interest, as well as conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Nombre 001].\n\n6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, the search, registration, and seizure proceedings were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, resulting in the arrest of the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 019], and also seizing evidence that links them directly to the charged acts, as set forth below: [...] 6.6 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located at [...], a dwelling, used by the accused [Name 022], [Name 015] and ([Name 013]), as a domicile and collection center for weapons, drugs, and money, proceeds of drug trafficking: [...] Five hundred twenty-dollar American bills for a total of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars), money that was the product of the criminal activity developed by the criminal group and that was destined to be inserted into the national financial market and that was stored in that property by the accused [Name 022], [Name 015] and ([Name 013])» [sic] (cf. pages 276 to 311 of the judgment). The above excerpt, which consists of the compilation of the relevant facts linking the defendants [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and [Name 015] with the handling of money from drug trafficking, in the opinion of this Chamber does allow deriving circumstances that fit the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). As explained when analyzing the remaining grounds filed on behalf of the defendants, the factual account charged and held as proven at trial places [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and [Name 015] as members of a criminal organization whose main objective was drug trafficking. Facts 1 and 2 frame the existence of that organization, its members, the period of operation, the places where the illicit activities were carried out, and the operational model used. Later, in fact 5, it was noted that this criminal organization also had the objective of carrying out «actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to hide the true nature, origin, destination, the movement and rights over different assets or the ownership of these; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001]», a description that coincides with the formulation adopted in the criminal statute of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), contained in article 69 of Law No. 8204, which, at the date of the facts, stated: «Shall be sanctioned with a prison sentence of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts or transmits assets of economic interest, knowing that these originate in a crime that, within its range of penalties, can be sanctioned with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to hide or cover up the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever hides or covers up the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement or rights over the assets or the ownership of these, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its range of penalties can be sanctioned with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more. The penalty shall be ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, when the assets of economic interest originate in any of the crimes related to the illicit trafficking of narcotics, psychotropic substances, money laundering (legitimación de capitales), diversion of precursors, essential chemical substances and related crimes, conduct classified as terrorist, in accordance with current legislation or when its purpose is the financing of acts of terrorism and terrorist organizations». Evidently, the description of fact 5 is generic and does not detail the concrete actions that the three defendants of interest would have carried out. However, in other sections of the factual account this circumstance is specified. In fact 3, as part of the functions adopted by [Name 004] and [Name 022], as well as by [Name 015], the collection and storage of money derived from the drug trafficking activity is described. This hoarding of money is reiterated in fact 4.13, which also describes that this activity was carried out in the dwelling shared by these persons, the address of which is detailed. Finally, in fact 6.6, it is again mentioned that the defendants used their domicile as a storage center for money from drug trafficking and it is detailed that, on the day of the search, they had in their possession a total of $10,000 from drug trafficking, whose destination was insertion into the national financial market. From the foregoing it is inferred that, contrary to what the appellant party stated, the acts charged and then held as proven do clearly describe the conduct constituting money laundering (legitimación de capitales), specifically the storage of money obtained as a product of drug trafficking in the dwelling shared by the defendants and which would be the action through which ([Name 013]), [Name 022] and [Name 015] hid the origin and destination of that money. Let us remember that to hide is «to conceal, cover up, disguise. We speak of “[…] positive actions of concealing, disguising or covering up, as well as remaining silent about what is known, to prevent knowledge by third parties, of the nature, origin, location, destination, movement or rights over assets from a serious crime or the ownership of the same”. Also included is the hiding of the material substrate of the assets, preventing, for example, the asset from being located at a certain time and space» (Vargas González, Patricia, Una aproximación al delito de legitimación de capitales (Leyes N.° 8204 y 8422). Revista Digital de Ciencias Penales de Costa Rica, No. 1 (32) (13), RDCP-UCR.\n\n2021. Available at https://archivo.revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/RDMCP/article/view/49508). It is true that the specific action attributed to the defendants was not condensed into a single fact or section, which, while desirable, is not essential, because what is relevant is that the factual description allows determining the conduct attributed to the defendant, as well as its temporal, spatial, and modal delimitation. The mentioned information — we reiterate — does emerge from the factual account, because it circumscribes that these actions were carried out in the dwelling of the brothers ([Name 022], [Name 014], [Name 013]) and their mother, located at [...]; in the period between April 2018 and October 2020, but even more precisely, it details that on October 13, 2020, the accused had under their custody $10,000 derived from drug trafficking activity. The defense alleges that the statement of facts does not refer to the typical verbs contained in article 69 of Law No. 8204, which, as already stated, is not true. Fact 5 contains among its verbs that of hiding and this was attributed, among others, to ([Name 013]), [Name 022] and [Name 015]; the manner in which this hiding was carried out is what is clarified in facts 3, 4.13, 6 and 6.6, specifically through the storage in their dwelling of money originating from drug trafficking activity, whose destination was insertion into the national financial market. Given this scenario, the defendants ([Name 013]), [Name 022] and [Name 015] were able to be informed of the attributed acts related to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), in order to exercise their right of defense effectively.\n\nIn that regard, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution no. 2022-1133, of 10:00 hours on November 4, 2022 —which this court shares—, stated that: «[…] the requirements of the accusation established in the criminal procedural rules are established as a guarantee of the right to a defense, such that the accused can anticipate the facts with which they are charged and, in this way, can plan and effectively exercise their right to a defense, thereby excluding the possibility of surprisingly including other aspects not contemplated in the accusatory instrument formulated by the prosecutorial body. In accordance with the foregoing, to satisfy the provision established in Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), it must be considered that the accusation must be explicit regarding the manner in which each of the requirements of the criminal offense definition were carried out. To that end, it is not enough to merely reiterate the elements that are provided for in the offense, but rather the manner in which each of the elements established in the unlawful act developed must be specified […]» (highlighting does not correspond to the original). That requirement for specificity and clarity was adequately and sufficiently satisfied in this case, and therefore the defect alleged by the defense, regarding the lack of imputation of the unlawful act, does not exist.\n\nAt this point, it is necessary to detail that the legal situation of ([Nombre 013]), [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015] was assessed by the lower court (a quo) differently than that of the accused [Nombre 033] and [Nombre 007], because although the latter were included in the general description contained in fact 5 —in the case of [Nombre 033] it was reiterated in fact 3—, no precision was made in another section of the statement of facts specifying what the action of “acquiring, converting, transmitting assets of economic interest” or of “concealing the true nature, origin, destination, movement and rights over different assets or the ownership thereof” consisted of, meaning the imputation in their case was incomplete; that is, their situation is clearly differentiable from the one analyzed in this recital (considerando). Moreover, no violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment (sentencia) or of congruence has been observed. Note that the facts accused coincide with those held as proven. The only variation verified is the suppression of the name of one of the persons mentioned in point 5, which does not generate an essential modification. Regarding the intellectual basis, it was not observed that any circumstance was included that was extraneous to the dynamics of the organization, its mode of operation, and the manner in which the unlawful acts were carried out, and therefore it is not true that unaccused facts were included in that section. It should be noted that this complaint was raised in the appeal (recurso) in a generic manner, without specifying what those circumstances the defense alludes to would be, in order to elicit a more specific response. In any case, as previously indicated, upon conducting a comprehensive examination of the judgment, no error of that nature could be verified. It is logical that, in the reconstruction of the facts of such a complex case, the intellectual analysis encompasses a multiplicity of events surrounding the central core of the action, which allows an understanding of how the criminal organization operated in its daily life. However, this is inherent to the richness of the evidentiary analysis carried out during the trial phase and in no way exceeds the imputation, which revolved around the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) —in addition to simple homicide, in the specific case of [Nombre 010]—. The truth is that, to hold the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) as proven, the judgment (sentencia) considered the membership of the accused persons in the criminal organization, the existence of a prior crime, specifically drug trafficking, which was held as proven based on the actions of supplying other criminal organizations and the intervention of ([Nombre 013]), [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015] in the concealment of money from that activity in their dwelling house (casa de habitación), knowing its unlawful origin, which is precisely the core of the imputation. Based on the considerations set forth, having dismissed the existence of the defects alleged by the defense counsel, the third ground of the challenge (impugnación) brought by the attorney Josué Alvarado Zúñiga is declared without merit (sin lugar).\n\nFourth ground of appeal (apelación) brought by Master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015]. He claims “Lack of substantiation (fundamentación) of the penalty regarding the determination of the amount of the custodial sentence (pena privativa de libertad)”. He details that the judgment (sentencia) imposed on each of his clients a sentence of 20 years of imprisonment (prisión) for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales), without considering subjective or objective aspects additional to the basic elements of each crime, such that the 2-year increase in imprisonment (prisión) for the crime of drug trafficking is not justified, because it was only said that they were family and that they used the dwelling for the safekeeping of drug caches. He indicates that the charged facts date back approximately nine years and no assessment is observed by the court of the subsequent behavior of the accused up to the present date. He denounces that no consideration was given to the fact that the accused have clean records (limpios antecedentes) and, despite that, a sentence far from the minimum extreme was imposed. As a grievance, he describes that the penalty basis cannot be succinct, nor limited to the mere enumeration of the elements of the offense, but must be sufficient and broad so that all parties are certain of the reasons why it is decided to increase the minimum extreme, especially when dealing with persons with clean records (limpios antecedentes). He asserts that the defective substantiation (fundamentación) causes harm to the defendants, by having to suffer a disproportionate sentence of 20 years of imprisonment (prisión) issued arbitrarily. He requests that the ground be granted (declarado con lugar) and a retrial ordered for a new substantiation. Additionally, he requests that the pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) measure imposed on his clients in the judgment (sentencia) be vacated. The ground is partially granted (parcialmente con lugar). The first thing that must be stated is that the indictees [Nombre 015], [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022] were declared responsible perpetrators of two distinct criminal acts: drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales). For each of them, a sentence of 10 years of imprisonment (prisión) was imposed. However, given that Article 69 of Law No. 8204 provides for a minimum sentence of 10 years for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), when the assets of economic interest originate from drug trafficking, even if potential deficiencies in the substantiation (fundamentación) of the sanction (sanción) could be noted, no harm is caused to the defendants, which is why it is not necessary to delve into that aspect. Regarding the basis set forth for fixing 10 years of imprisonment (prisión) for the crime of drug trafficking, which exceeds the minimum extreme by 2 years, this Chamber has been able to verify that, in effect, the substantiation (fundamentación) of the sanction (sanción) is defective. Note that the lower court (a quo) limited itself to stating the following: “In the case of [Nombre 022], [Nombre 013] and [Nombre 015], it is highly reprehensible to have used the humble dwelling in which they lived as a storage point for money, drugs, and weapons; distorting the character of intimacy that a dwelling implies. In the case of the three accused, although it is true they are family, they used that circumstance against them, that is, it did not prove to be a restraint to prevent their involvement in the commission of crimes. [Nombre 013] has one judgment in his record that should already be considered served, [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015] have no record, that is, the three are persons with clean records (limpios antecedentes), which is valued by the trial chamber (cámara de juicio) in order not to increase the imposed sanction. [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 013] were people who spent most of their time with [Nombre 001] or at his dwelling, which reveals that they were trusted and esteemed persons, which was evident since they participated in practically all of Mr. [Nombre 001]’s transfers, actively participating, and they also had the support of their mother [Nombre 015] who kept them fully informed of the police presence, which is lamentable that it occurs in a family and therefore is very reprehensible” (cf. fs. 986 to 987 of the judgment). It should be noted, in relation to the reasons given by the lower court (a quo), that although it is true that the three indictees are family, that circumstance does not imply that the criminal reproach can be made jointly. Criminal responsibility is personal in nature and for that reason, an individual analysis of each of the accused is required for the determination of the sanction (sanción), based on the parameters outlined in Article 71 of the Penal Code (Código Penal). In this case, the trial court not only made a global reproach for the three accused, but it was limited and generic, since it does not reflect that the aspects set forth in the aforementioned norm (supra), which are of interest for weighing the particular situation of each indictee, were taken into consideration.\n\nIn addition to the foregoing, this Chamber has confirmed that there were errors in the assessment of the evidence and, for that reason, it was concluded that not all of the attributed facts were proven, which equally justifies a new determination of the penalty that must be imposed, based on the circumstances that have been delineated in this ruling. Based on the foregoing, what is appropriate is to declare the ground of appeal under study *partially with merit*; consequently, the 10-year sentence imposed on [Name 013], [Name 022] and [Name 015] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled, and a retrial is ordered for a new determination of that matter, which must be conducted in observance of the principle of non-reformatio in pejus. The 10-year prison sentence imposed for the offense of money laundering remains unaltered. \n- **Sole ground of the challenge filed by [Name 007].** He considers that there is insufficient evidence, erroneous assessment of the facts, as well as of his condition of socioeconomic and personal vulnerability, because his conviction is based solely on the content of the wiretaps, since there is no material, testimonial, or \"operative evidence\" of the activities of storing or selling drugs, which makes the penalty and its foundations disproportionate. He details that the same court acquitted him of the crime of money laundering, because there was no evidence linking him to the acquisition and handling of money. He indicates that no controlled drug purchases were made from him, adding that his condition as a drug addict is confirmed by the wiretaps, so that he finds himself in a state of vulnerability. He states that the wiretaps show that he bought drugs to calm his anxiety, not to sell them. He considers that there was no \"operative validation\" that he actually stored or sold drugs. He believes that the accusation against him is based solely on presumptions derived from the wiretaps, without support in real evidence. He points out that he is in a condition of vulnerability due to drug use and limitations in access to education and health, which is why the analysis of the evidence is biased. He accuses that he was unfairly linked to an act of surveillance at the Vilma Curling Rivera penitentiary center, because a police report was used documenting his presence at that location on May 29, 2019, when he got out of a Mitsubishi Montero vehicle with another person and the court considered he was performing surveillance tasks. He notes that there is no evidence that he entered the prison or performed security functions for any inmate related to the case. He states that the reason his presence at the location implies the commission of the offense of drug trafficking is not explained, yet that circumstance has been used to strengthen the hypothesis that he was part of a criminal organization, despite the fact that the typical result of that crime is not present. He relates that he is a person of scarce resources, with limited income and without access to formal employment. He asserts that the sentence did not adequately assess his social and economic context, a deficiency that places him in a situation of risk and exclusion that hinders his defense. He qualifies the imposed penalty as disproportionate, because there is no harm to the legal right. He maintains that he is a drug user, not a drug trafficker; that his condition has not been considered, despite being a vulnerable person in need of treatment, not a conviction. He describes that no evidence has been presented that he participated in drug distribution; instead, his link to the offense was made based on presumptions derived from poorly interpreted wiretaps or aimed at \"completing an unfinished or indeterminate conviction.\" He affirms that, given his condition, he could not have fulfilled the alleged functions of lookout for the criminal organization. He alleges that there is no material evidence against him, no financial records, documentation, or assets in his name acquired with money of illicit origin. He states that the sentence violates the presumption of innocence that protects him, by being based on inferences and suppositions, not on concrete evidence; furthermore, he was linked to a criminal organization without an active role within it being proven. He argues that the wiretaps cannot be the only evidence for his conviction, but that there must be corroboration with other elements, which did not occur in this case. He maintains that his presence at the Vilma Curling penitentiary center is not related to drug trafficking, because his mere proximity to the site is not an indication of an offense and it was not demonstrated that he performed surveillance or coordination tasks with the criminal organization. He states that the absence of controlled purchases reinforces the non-existence of a crime, because if he had participated in the criminal activity, the police could have made purchases to verify the existence of the offense. He requests that the sentence be annulled and he be acquitted in application of the principle *in dubio pro reo*; or, that his state of vulnerability due to his socioeconomic condition and as a drug user be analyzed, so that alternative sanctions to deprivation of liberty are assessed. In the alternative, he requests a retrial. For the reasons that will be stated, by majority, the ground is declared without merit. After a meticulous analysis of the first instance ruling, the majority of this Chamber concludes that, although the trial court deemed all of the facts attributed to [Name 007], alias \"[Name 109]\", for the offense of drug trafficking to be proven, in reality, based on the intellectual reasoning set forth, these can only be considered duly proven in part, as will be detailed below. As a starting point, it is necessary to outline the facts that the sentence held as proven and that involve said defendant, namely: \"*1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they maintained under their control various properties for storing, distributing, and selling drugs, as well as for receiving money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: • The storage and dosing of the drug shipments acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of shipments to the various points of sale. • The sale of drug shipments owned by the criminal group to other bands based in the national territory.*\n\n• The sale of drug caches belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug-dependent individuals, through the properties held by the organization for \"Bunker\"-type purposes, as well as on the public thoroughfares of the areas under the organization's control. • The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, employing various means for this purpose. 3.- This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal fashion, so that each of its members performed specific functions, all in a single direction: the sale of drugs and the safeguarding of the group over the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows: […] [Nombre 007]: member of the narco structure, who among other functions, under the direction and supervision of the leader of the criminal structure, was responsible for storing and guarding, in the designated properties, supplies belonging to the organization, primarily drug caches and weapons; in addition, he was responsible for carrying out security tasks during the drug deliveries made by the criminal group to another narco structures for the purpose of transfer, supply, and acquisition of the caches. […] 4.23 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Nombre 001] recruited the accused [Nombre 007] to, from the period of April 2018 until October 2020, perform logistics functions typical of the criminal organization, ranging from ensuring the security of the criminal group through surveillance camera monitoring, to the storage of money derived from drug trafficking in his dwelling, actions for which the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.24 On November 1, 2019, in [...], the owned dwelling where the accused [Nombre 007] resided, as part of the actions delegated by the criminal organization regarding the storage of narcotic drugs, he kept under his custody and possession a cache of narcotic drugs, which was destined for sale to third persons. 4.25 On November 11, 2019, in [...], the owned dwelling where the accused [Nombre 007] resided, as part of the actions delegated by the criminal organization regarding the storage of narcotic drugs, he kept under his custody and possession at least one kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride, which was sold to a subject identified by the alias \"[Nombre 187]\", an action that was supervised by the accused [Nombre 161]» [sic] (cf. f. 276 to 290 of the judgment). From the reading of the preceding passage taken from the proven facts —which coincide with the facts accused by the Public Prosecutor's Office—, the following conduct was imputed to the defendant [Nombre 007]: (i) security tasks for the criminal group, in two forms: through surveillance cameras and during the group's drug deliveries to other organizations; (ii) storage and custody of the organization's supplies, specifically drugs, weapons, and money. It should be noted that the court of first instance (a quo) acquitted [Nombre 007] of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), considering that it was not properly imputed, a point that was not appealed by the Public Prosecutor's Office, and therefore it is an aspect that has become final. Regarding the tasks imputed and for which a conviction was issued, in the opinion of this Court, the storage and custody of drugs for the criminal organization was duly established, but not the remaining actions attributed to [Nombre 007]. With respect to the security tasks, although the evidence indicates that he did indeed fulfill functions of that nature, the fact is that they do not fit the imputation made by the Public Prosecutor's Office, since that body specifically circumscribed them to the moments when drug deliveries were made to other structures and also included a modal element: \"through the observation of surveillance cameras\". The reasoning set forth by the court of first instance (a quo) to determine the criminal liability of the defendant is contained in the section «Facts against [Nombre 007], who was recruited by [Nombre 001] and supervised by [Nombre 161]» (cf. f. 621). The analysis begins with the connection of [Nombre 007], alias \"[Nombre 109]\", with other members of the criminal structure, to determine his belonging to it. In that sense, it is verified that, in effect, he maintained constant telephone contact with [Nombre 010], [Nombre 029], and the brothers [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022]. Furthermore, his servility and submission with respect to [Nombre 001] was evident, to the point that he had to request authorization from him to visit him and to move from the places where he was assigned.\n\nIn that regard, sequence 0337010, of the intercepted line [Value 100], at 20:42 hours on February 4, 2019: «[Name 109] called [Name 124], [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124], [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124] said – speak to me, [Name 109] said – hey man where are you?, [Name 124] said – inside why?, do you need something?, [Name 109] said – man tell that guy if I can come over for a bit, [Name 124] said – okay, [Name 109] said – tell him, tell him so we can go right away, [Name 109] said – (mentions something that is not understood) bastard maybe, [Name 109] said – ah, but tell him man so that, so we can see if he says to go or not man because maybe he says no or something like that because I have to be here, [Name 124] said – ask him, you idiot, come on, [Name 109] said – ah, [Name 124] said – come on, come on, ask him, [Name 109] said – no man because later he tells me no, that I should stay there and he chews me out, tell him man, [Name 124] said – what a pain, he's chickening out then saica, they continue talking without interest. The communication ends» (Highlighting supplied). As has been indicated in different sections of this pronouncement, when the defendants mentioned \"that guy\" they were referring to [Name 001]. The use of the term was intended to avoid using his name so as not to expose him, as part of the clandestine nature with which they operated. Now, regarding the security tasks attributed to the defendant and which, according to the section of proven facts, were limited to drug transfers, as well as to the verification of surveillance cameras, the judgment lacks evidentiary support. Nowhere in the ruling is it specifically established that the defendant carried out camera verification in order to transfer information to the other accused parties. The judgment does conclusively indicate that the organization had people performing this function, but it does not identify [Name 007] as one of them, nor does it contain an evidentiary analysis that allows this to be derived (in that regard, see f. 358). Concerning security tasks during drug transfers, the lower court's ruling also does not offer categorical conclusions; rather, the evidence examined seems to allude to moments when the criminal organization was carrying out transfers of [Name 001], as can be inferred from the following communications: sequence 0305849, at 12:13 hours on December 14, 2018. [Name 007], alias «[Name 109]», provides information to [Name 010], who is traveling with [Name 001] —he is heard off-phone—, about the condition of the route they are traveling. In a similar vein, sequence 0008581, at 22:43 hours on December 12, 2018, in which «[Name 083]» and «[Name 109]» talk about the fact that the latter had to be in a certain place because they were taking \"that guy\". Also, sequence 0339535, at 19:58 hours on February 8, 2019, in which «[Name 109]» told «[Name 123]» «here comes that guy, because [Name 083] is already asking about the group, how everything looks» [sic]. The judgment does not specify if on any of these occasions a drug mobilization by the criminal group was actually taking place; in fact, it is logical that they would not have done so because it would pose a risk to [Name 001], who acted with extreme care and in clandestinity. Beyond these communications, the remaining ones considered are also not sufficient for those purposes. Thus, there is sequence 0308331, at 18:41 hours on November 19, 2018, in which «[Name 109]» informs [Name 010] that there is a mobilization of people towards the Garabito sector, probably some police force, and sequence 0340718, at 17:04 hours on February 10, 2019, in which «[Name 109]» asked a third party about police presence, which is easily deduced because he refers to them as «Cops». Although the alertness of those under investigation and their desire not to be detected by the authorities is evident, it cannot be clearly inferred from these telephone contacts that at the time the communications occurred, drugs were being moved; consequently, the threshold of doubt is not overcome. Although the collusion of [Name 007] with the remaining members of the criminal organization and his willingness to participate in the transfers of [Name 001] to safeguard his personal integrity is clear and evident, that function was not charged against him. However, the information generated is useful, insofar as it places the defendant as an active member of the organization, who not only knows about but habitually participates in its dynamics. Regarding the second conduct attributed to the defendant, specifically the storage of drugs, it is necessary to point out that this was duly accredited, although two specific facts, described in the factual account charged, specifically in points 4.24 and 4.25, were not proven. The foregoing in no way diminishes the possibility of attributing criminal responsibility to the defendant, because in the charged fact 3, which describes the functions each defendant carried out, it was stated that [Name 007]: «under the direction and supervision of the leader of the criminal structure, was responsible for storing and guarding, in designated properties, supplies belonging to the organization, primarily drug caches.» Regarding this task, the judgment indicates: «In the same way, drug custodial functions as evidenced by the following calls: “From [Value 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0059461. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Value 088]. This call was made at 21:27 hours on January 28, 2019. [Name 083] called [Name 109] and said – where are you?, [Name 109] said – here by my place, [Name 083] said – at your mom's?, [Name 109] said – yes here by my house, at my mom's, [Name 083] said – okay I'll come by so you can pass it to me or bring me, bring me one here to the house, the only one you have, [Name 109] said – okay okay buddy but don't tell me that stuff man, it's that (it is not understood) [Name 083] said – what did I say?, [Name 109] said – okay. I'll come by, [Name 083] said – ok I'm here at my place, oh no look, [Name 109] said – what, [Name 083] said – I'll see you there better at la uno, the car is there, [Name 109] said – okay, [Name 083] said – ok. Communication ends. From [Value 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0059467. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Value 088]. This call was made at 21:38 hours on January 28, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 083] called [Nombre 109] and the latter told him –I'm on my way, I'm getting the stuff, [Nombre 083] said –well hurry up, don't you see they're already there, you idiot, [Nombre 109] said –yeah, yeah, I'm coming, I was just talking to some guy there, [Nombre 083] said –ok. Call ended\". It should not be forgotten that the person with whom [Nombre 007] is speaking is [Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\", who was the designated person for the distribution of drug shipments to other criminal organizations; it is for this reason that it is inferred from the context of the call that alias \"[Nombre 109]\" has custody of a drug shipment and [Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" asks him to deliver it to him, so much so that alias \"[Nombre 083]\" tells him that it is the only one he had in custody, to which alias \"[Nombre 109]\" tells him in the second call that he is already getting it out. The event described above occurred on January 28, 2019; however, on February 9, 2019, the dynamic repeats itself. To reach such a conclusion, it is sufficient to analyze the following calls: \"From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0005632. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Valor 088]. This call was made at 14:36 hours on February 9, 2019. [Nombre 083] called [Nombre 109] and told him –man, [Nombre 109] said –hello, [Nombre 083] said –bring me one to the house, [Nombre 109] said –downstairs?, [Nombre 083] said –yeah, to my house downstairs; they say goodbye. Call ended. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0006386. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Valor 088]. This call was made at 23:20 hours on February 9, 2019. [Nombre 083] called [Nombre 109] and told him –man, be alert because I'll let you know in a bit so you can pass me another one, [Nombre 109] said –uh-huh, okay okay, just send me a message then, [Nombre 083] said –yeah, because they pay tomorrow so the deal is going down early tomorrow so tomorrow there will be sticks, [Nombre 109] said –uh-huh, okay then, see, send me a message and what, do I meet you downstairs the same?, [Nombre 083] said –yeah, uh-huh, at my house; they say goodbye. Call ended\". Clearly, once alias \"[Nombre 083]\" asks alias \"[Nombre 109]\" to bring him one to the house, and in the next call tells him to be alert because he will soon ask him to bring another, there is no doubt that it deals with the context of the drug packages that alias \"[Nombre 109]\" was guarding and which alias \"[Nombre 083]\" was in charge of marketing to other organizations, so much so that in the second call they discuss that for the following day there would be sticks, which in the coded language used by the organization refers to a large amount of money, properly millions. (Highlighting supplied. Cf. folios 629 to 631 of the judgment). This Chamber considers that the conclusion reached by the a quo was correct, by virtue of the fact that the preceding communications, evaluated jointly with the remaining findings of the investigation, allow the inference that, in effect, when these occurred, [Nombre 007] was guarding drugs for the organization. Several aspects must be highlighted: the first is that the highlighted communications are held by [Nombre 007] with alias \"[Nombre 083]\", who is none other than [Nombre 029], who was clearly linked to the function of transporting drugs for supply to other organizations —a broad discussion of his criminal participation was made in recital X of this ruling—. The second aspect that stands out is the time of the communications, specifically 21:27 hours and 21:38 hours. This detail is relevant because it was proven that, as part of the measures taken by the organization to avoid being discovered, [Nombre 029] made the drug deliveries at nightfall or the early morning, so the time of the phone contacts is consistent with that dynamic. Third, the accused agreed to meet at the site where a vehicle was located, at the request of alias \"[Nombre 083]\". The investigation carried out made it possible to establish with total certainty that [Nombre 029] carried out the drug transports in the Mitsubishi brand, Montero style vehicle, license plate [Valor 068], so the information derived from the communications is consistent with the preparations for a subsequent drug transfer. The fourth point is that alias \"[Nombre 083]\" pressures alias \"[Nombre 109]\" to bring him the object that he holds in his possession as soon as possible, by expressly stating \"hurry up, don't you see they're already there, you idiot\", so it is evident that what he is going to receive from [Nombre 007] he will then deliver to third parties, who would already be waiting for it. In this context, then, it is possible to agree with the a quo, regarding that when [Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" asks [Nombre 007], alias \"[Nombre 109]\", to bring him \"one here to the house, the only one you have\", they are referring to a drug package that was under the latter's custody. On February 9, 2019, as stated by the a quo, a similar interaction occurred between both accused. On that occasion, in the afternoon hours, alias \"[Nombre 083]\" asks \"[Nombre 109]\" to bring him one to the \"house\", which is a colloquial expression to refer to his home. That same day during the night, specifically at 23:20, [Nombre 029] informs ([Nombre 007]) that he needs him to pass him another one. Now, from this new coordination between the subjects, another piece of data of interest emerges, which can be stated as the fifth: alias \"[Nombre 083]\" indicates that \"the deal is going down early tomorrow so tomorrow there will be sticks\". The investigation also made it possible to determine that the payment for the drug deliveries made by [Nombre 029] was received by him in cash, so it is then completely consistent that in this communication he indicated to ([Nombre 007]) that the next day there would be \"sticks\", which in colloquial language is a way of referring to money. This reference was confirmed in sequence 0336893, in which a third party asks alias \"[Nombre 109]\" if the sticks came in and he indicates yes, and that they gave him 25 canes. Also in sequence 0338705, in which he speaks with [Nombre 022] about going to change \"sticks\", which is consistent with the currency exchange dynamic executed by some members of the organization, among them precisely [Nombre 022]. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the evidentiary assessment carried out by the a quo, regarding those phone contacts, is fully coincident with the remaining evidence that was gathered in the process and the dynamic reconstructed regarding the supply of drugs to other organizations. Under the foregoing position, it is possible to infer then that, in the following communications, as detailed by the a quo, [Nombre 007] and [Nombre 022] are hiding drugs belonging to the criminal organization in the first's home: \"From [Valor 100]. Call identified with sequence number 0341609. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone line [Valor 086]. This call was made at 23:13 hours on February 11, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 109] called [Nombre 123], extra telephone [Nombre 109] said - (cannot understand what he mentions) write down your number for me here, the pump, [Nombre 123] said - hello, [Nombre 109] said - what, [Nombre 123] said - tell me, [Nombre 109] said - what, extra telephone [Nombre 083] said - well and how are you going to call me then (mentions something that cannot be understood), [Nombre 083] told [Nombre 123] - mae, extra telephone something was said that was not understood, [Nombre 123] said - what, [Nombre 109] said - hello, mae look go over there by my place, get on all fours to lower a thing there, [Nombre 123] said - by your place, [Nombre 109] said - if you call me put it on, [Nombre 123] said - no no but it's all good here the neighborhood doesn't see anything anything, [Nombre 109] said - go to the alley you idiot, [Nombre 123] said - okay you piece of stupid mae you son of a bitch. The communication ended. From [Valor 100]. Call identified with sequence number 0341610. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone line [Valor 086]. This call was made at 23:16 hours on February 11, 2019. [Nombre 123] called [Nombre 109], [Nombre 109] said - hello, [Nombre 123] said - all good mae, [Nombre 109] said - okay there we go, where are you?, [Nombre 123] said - right here in the alley here mae. The communication ended\" [sic] (cf. page 637 of the judgment). The time of the communications again coincides with the time when the members of the organization carried out drug movements to minimize the risk of being discovered. By virtue of the foregoing, it is reiterated, this Chamber agrees that the function of storage and custody of drugs attributed to [Nombre 007] was correctly accredited in the judgment, in the terms that were imputed to him in the third fact of the accusation.\n\nHaving clarity on the above, it must be pointed out that, even though it is considered possible to sustain that function, this Chamber considers that the events described in points 4.24 and 4.25 do not correspond to the evidence that supports them, because the content of the communications considered does not allow inferring the circumstances of time, manner, and place described in those events. Observe, in this regard, sequence 0328187, from 14:13 hours on November 1, 2019, in which [Nombre 007] tells a third party named [Nombre 002] \"mae why don't you come for a bit and take the car out of the garage of '[Nombre 190]' mae, it's just to store something for the boss mae, it's not that no one can see there and there are a lot of people, [Nombre 002] said -aaah okay, okay, [Nombre 007] said -it's just a bit to put the thing in and the car takes off with the thing, so no one sees, [Nombre 002] said -okay papi, [Nombre 007] said -okay\" (cf. page 644 of the judgment). In fact 4.24 it was described that [Nombre 007] had a stash of narcotics stored in his dwelling; however, the communication transcribed above does not allow inferring that circumstance. Note that the accused made no reference to his domicile, but rather requests that a motor vehicle be taken out of the dwelling of a subject he identifies as \"[Nombre 190]\", so what actually seems to happen is that the accused is going to store an object of an illicit nature —which could indeed be drugs, given that storage and custody was part of his functions— but in the vehicle he asks to be moved and which will then leave the site. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers then, that the circumstances described in point 4.24 of the accusatory piece, given their degree of specificity, were not duly verified from that communication. A similar situation occurs with the following event, specifically the one recorded in point 4.25. In sequence 0205183, from 21:54 hours on November 11, 2019, the following dialogue was generated: \"[Nombre 161] alias '[Nombre 083]' received a call from [Nombre 007] alias '[Nombre 109]', user of the telephone line [Valor 088]. [Nombre 225] said -hello, [Nombre 007] said -'[Nombre 083]', [Nombre 225] said -yes, [Nombre 007] said -mae, [Nombre 187], the nephew of [Nombre 099], came here for a baby, ask that mae to see, [Nombre 225] said -who is it, [Nombre 007] said -[Nombre 187] the nephew of [Nombre 099], that [Nombre 099] sent him for a baby [Nombre 225] said -well tell him not yet, I'll let him know in a bit, that mae isn't there, [Nombre 007] said -but the guy told me something like that, [Nombre 225] said -but no mae, that mae isn't there and he hasn't told me anything dude, I'm not going to deliver anything to anyone, besides I think there's nothing yet right now, tell him I'll let him know, [Nombre 007] said mae but that mae has one stored from [Nombre 099] mae, that has to be delivered to him, [Nombre 225] said -but until that mae comes, I'm not going to deliver shit if that mae doesn't tell me mae, [Nombre 007] said -but can't you ask him, don't you have his PIN, [Nombre 225] said -he's busy right now mae, tell him we'll look for him in a bit, when that mae comes\" [sic] (Highlighting supplied. Cf. page 645 of the judgment). Although it is clear that in that communication [Nombre 007] and [Nombre 161] talk about cocaine-type drugs, because they use the term \"baby\" which is the form of coded language with which the members of the organization referred to that material —see the resolution of the grounds for appeal filed on behalf of [Nombre 029]—, the information derived from it does not allow deducing that this \"baby\" was in the possession of ([Nombre 007]), specifically in his dwelling house and that he delivered it to the person identified by the subjects as \"[Nombre 187]\". From the communication it is inferred rather, that the subject \"[Nombre 187]\" made the request for a \"baby\", that is, drugs, to ([Nombre 007]) and he informs [Nombre 225], who is reluctant to deliver it and indicates, first, that he is not going to make any delivery without permission and second, that he does not know if there is any, to which [Nombre 007] responds \"mae but that mae has one stored from [Nombre 099] mae, that has to be delivered to him\". From the indicated communication it seems to follow, in reality, that the drug was not in the possession of [Nombre 007], although he fully knew its whereabouts —which is inferred from the indication: \"that mae has one stored\"— and for that reason requests authorization to be able to deliver it to the subject identified as \"[Nombre 187]\". So, again the information is dissimilar to the very restrictive circumstances of the accusation, set forth in point 4.25, according to which, the drug was in the dwelling of [Nombre 007]. However, the communication is of great relevance to establish the knowledge and full involvement of said defendant in the criminal activity of trafficking illicit substances. Finally, the judgment also held as proven that [Nombre 007] stored money in his domicile. In that sense the following sequences: 0336891, from 16:43 hours on February 4, 2019. \"[Nombre 109]\" asks \"[Nombre 123]\" if they are going to change money and the latter tells him that the neighborhood is \"suspicious\", by which it is understood that it is not calm; 0337398, from 14:14 hours on February 5, 2019.\n\n\"[Name 109]\" and \"[Name 123]\" again talk about going to \"exchange\"; 0338705, at 14:49 hours on February 7, 2019. \"[Name 123]\" tells \"[Name 109]\" to get ready to go exchange \"sticks\"; 0338571, at 11:05 hours on February 7, 2019. \"[Name 109]\" tells a female, apparently his sentimental partner, to give money to a third party and indicates that he has money in the room and expressly refers to \"large bills\"; 0358729, at 13:47 hours on March 2, 2019 and 0358730, at 13:48 hours on March 2, 2019, \"[Name 083]\" asks \"[Name 109]\" to go to the place where the former is and to bring \"cash\". Despite the foregoing, the defendant was acquitted of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and the judgment does not explain that said custody had a purpose other than those described in numeral 69 of Law No. 8204; rather, it merely indicates, in a generic manner, that it was intended for the protection of money from possible robberies or \"rip-offs,\" thereby seeming to allude, in a cursory manner, to the exhaustion phase of the drug trafficking crime, without clearly arguing from where that conclusion derives. Given the lack of challenge to that point, the acquittal for the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) has become final with respect to [Name 007]. As a corollary, this Court concludes that the facts attributed to [Name 007] were partially proven, since his function of storing and guarding drugs was fully established; but not that of providing security, in the terms that were attributed—by means of surveillance cameras—. Because both functions are part of the same crime, specifically aggravated drug trafficking, what corresponds then is the declaration without merit of the appeal managed by the material defense, insofar as his criminal liability as a co-perpetrator remains unchanged. Based on the reasons set forth, which correspond to the criteria of the majority of this Court, the ground is declared without merit. Despite the foregoing, it is appropriate, on the court's own motion, to annul the imposed penalty and order the remand for a new substantiation of that point, insofar as the criminal reproach was made in consideration of the totality of the accused facts, so a new discussion of that point is then required, based on the circumstances delimited herein. At that opportunity, the principle prohibiting reform for the worse must be observed. Judge Escalante Quirós issues a dissenting vote.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With profound respect, I depart from the vote of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, because although the decision was to declare the challenge without merit, the criminal liability of [Name 007] was reduced by exonerating him from a part of the facts proven in the judgment (the surveillance tasks during drug transfers and facts numbered 4.24 and 4.25), maintaining his conviction only for the storage and custody of drugs for the criminal organization, in accordance with the third fact. On the contrary, upon declaring without merit the sole ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Name 007], I am of the thesis that his conviction must remain intact. The trial court established as proven that the defendant [Name 001], leader of the criminal group, in the context of the common plan and the division of functions of the pyramidal structure of the criminal network, designated [Name 007] to perform surveillance—security—and drug storage functions between April 2018 and October 2020. Specifically, he was convicted for two drug trafficking events detailed as having occurred on November 1 and 11, 2019. Now, in my opinion, the conviction decision of ([Name 007]) was not based exclusively on the content of the communications that refer to the cited dates of November 2019, but rather the *a quo* weighed more evidence and did so in the context of the criminal network as a whole. In this regard, I am of the thesis that, in the environment of a complex criminal organization like the one led by [Name 001], individual materializations of what is captured in each telephone intervention should not be required, since it is clear that in view of the considerable size that this criminal network had, the essential contributions of its members, even when they only seem to be inferred from one or several phone calls, must be contextualized in light of the rest of the evidence but, above all, determining whether a particular person is an active and permanent part of the structure or not. This can be inferred, within the framework of evidentiary freedom, from the analysis of the evidence referring to the participation of other defendants, provided that proven links exist between the specific criminal acts and the persons. Upon transferring that to the case of ([Name 007]), if his conviction was based on the events of November 1 and 11, 2019, this was not extracted solely from the jurisdictionally intercepted communications, since the court clearly did not ignore the rest of the evidence that, as a whole, allowed [Name 007] to be linked with other members of the criminal network—understood as co-perpetrators—. Precisely that is what, in my opinion, was developed in the judgment, specifically regarding the determination of the facts for which ([Name 007]) was convicted. Starting from page 621 of the ruling, the *a quo* set forth a meticulous analysis of the evolution of the telephone intervention, in order to illustrate at what moment the participation of [Name 007] was detected, which was well before November 2019, which consisted of an evident collusion as a co-perpetrator in the illicit drug trafficking business. The judgment stated this by citing sequences of the intervention, such as numbers 318469, 305849, 17911, 26760, 8581, 31718, 308331 and 29356, from which the link of ([Name 007]) with the defendants [Name 010], alias “[Name 083]”, [Name 001] and alias “[Name 124]” or “[Name 124]” is evident. Of special relevance, in accordance with the criteria I have set forth, is that the trial court on the merits established the evident connection between [Name 007] and other defendants whose co-perpetration in drug trafficking was proven, as was the case of ([Name 004]) and [Name 161].\n\nNote that all this evidentiary analysis, which I consider is indeed in the section of the ruling dedicated to the criminal liability of ([Nombre 007]), made it possible to link him as an active member of the criminal network and, therefore, constitutes the jurisdictional development of the inferences (indicios) which, added to the elements of conviction arising from the wiretaps, which contain the detail of the criminal events of November 1 and 11, 2019, led to affirming the conviction decision for [Nombre 007]. In addition, the deciding body also extracted [Nombre 007]'s participation from report number IP-128-EN-19, from which it was inferred the functions he had within the criminal organization, as well as his closeness to the leader [Nombre 001]. This was also supported by the call described in sequence 38180, along with the important content of number 348164 where ([Nombre 007]) himself acknowledges that he works for [Nombre 001]. Likewise, the judgment elaborates on report number IP-33-EN-19, where the drug transport carried out by [Nombre 029] with the support of “[Nombre 083]” and [Nombre 007] was documented. Precisely here, an essential link examined by the judgment must be assessed, which consists of the explanation of why it was interpreted – correctly in my view – that the events of November 1 and 11, 2019, corresponded to drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas) actions. As indicated, the court weighed the link of the accused [Nombre 007] with the criminal network, based on the analysis of evidence other than the wiretap, from which it was reasonably inferred that [Nombre 007] was indeed referring to drugs and that he did so in the full exercise of his role as co-perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking, to which the criminal organization was dedicated for years. In the ninth and tenth considerandos of this decision, the challenges in favor of the defendant ([Nombre 004]) were unanimously declared without merit, thus identifying that his conviction for the crime against public health was correctly proven by the a quo. This is very important precisely because, as indicated, the court first evidentiarily established the connection between [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 007], in order to first contextualize and later understand the events of November 1 and 11, 2019. As I indicated supra, it is not about isolating the defendants and assessing whether their criminal participation only arises from a wiretap, because that would only be correct in a case different from this one, where there was no complex criminal network that divided up the functions and, therefore, where the facts are proven from the common union of the elements of conviction. Thus, in organized crime cases like the one sub examine, it is evident that some defendants will only be linked – in principle – by a certain type of evidence, for example surveillance or intercepted calls, while some others will be the ones who illustrate the materializations, for example transport or sales that end in drug seizures, at the same time that other persons who are part of the same network will only appear in security or custody tasks, for example protecting leaders and/or stashes. Therefore, if the existence of the criminal organization was proven, its considerable permanence over time and its size, the complexity of the structure and with it the particular way in which the tasks that, within the common plan, were deemed essential to carry out the crimes were distributed, it is clear that some co-perpetrators will only be linked by a certain type of evidence, from which it is evident, in my opinion, that the traditional rules of evidence assessment are broken, because these are not equally traditional illegal acts but rather modern and intricate organized crime structures. Consequently, if the court assessed a multitude of evidence, among them the testimonies of the judicial investigators, police reports, drug seizures and wiretaps; from all that evidentiary survey it is valid, from my point of view, to link those who clearly form an active part of the criminal network, the relevant point being that, as in this case, the wiretap is not the sole source of evidentiary elements. In line with the foregoing, at this point in the resolution it has become clear that the a quo broadly and correctly substantiated the criminal liability of the group leader [Nombre 001], as well as of one of the co-perpetrators closest to the top, [Nombre 029]. Emphasis is placed on ([Nombre 004]), precisely because, as indicated before, the court explains the active role of ([Nombre 007]) mainly through his direct link with [Nombre 029], colluding in surveillance tasks in the locality of León XIII, as well as in the custody of [Nombre 001]'s transport and in drug trafficking. This being the case, having accused ([Nombre 007]) that his specific participation was on November 1 and 11, 2019, this was not only explained from the content of the wiretaps that detail it, but that criminal behavior can only be understood in this way, based on the entire evidentiary assessment, especially that which links [Nombre 001] and ([Nombre 004]) in direct, clear, and evident concert with ([Nombre 007]) in the illicit business of drug trafficking to which they were dedicated. The ruling indicates that [Nombre 029] carried out criminal activities under the leadership of [Nombre 001], from April 2018 until October 2020, having demonstrated in the judgment several materializations, among them the one related to the sale of drugs to the network of ([Nombre 099]) through ([Nombre 137]) (case 18000017-1219-PE), as well as with another crime of drug supply that occurred in Aserrí in May 2019 (case 19-014179-0042-PE). These facts were proven in the judgment based on testimonial evidence – the statement of the investigators –, police reports, surveillance, raids and drug seizures; all of which, in the case of [Nombre 007], was linked to his communications of November 1 and 11, 2019, based on the proven nexus he had with [Nombre 001] and with [Nombre 029], precisely in surveillance, custody and drug trafficking activities. Although the accusation and the proven facts of the judgment indicate that the surveillance was carried out by means of surveillance cameras, I consider that, since that specific mode of proceeding with that function was not demonstrated, the surveillance as such, which was indeed demonstrated, subsists; hence, if the referred modal circumstance were hypothetically removed, the foundation of the ruling remains intact because it was indeed demonstrated that [Nombre 007] performed surveillance tasks for the narco gang.\n\nIn summary, from my point of view, the determination of the facts for which [Nombre 007] was convicted was not made solely and exclusively from judicially intercepted calls, but rather the judgment explains and understands what was said in those communications, based on their joint analysis with the rest of the evidence, especially due to his connection with [Nombre 029] and with [Nombre 001]. For this reason, my vote is to declare the sole ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Nombre 007] without merit, maintaining his criminal liability intact as determined by the a quo.-\n\nXIX. First ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, in favor of the defendant [Nombre 010]. He alleges “Erroneous intellectual basis due to erroneous assessment of the evidence regarding the determination of the fact” with respect to the simple homicide attributed to [Nombre 010]. He maintains that his client did not participate in the homicide of [Nombre 180]. He indicates that the accreditation of the crime was made based on two telephone communications in which one of the interlocutors was the defendant [Nombre 010]. He refers that his client admitted in the debate to being one of the persons participating in the conversation captured on the telephone line [Valor 106] of Mrs. [Nombre 192]. After an in extenso transcription of the judgment's intellectual basis, he states that the reasoning of the a quo to determine his client's participation in the events is the product of an incorrect assessment of the evidence, because it is not possible to reach a state of certainty, despite the existence of the aforementioned communications. He argues that, from the argumentation contained in the judgment, it is inferred that both the deceased's mother and a third person were present when the event occurred and neither of them identified the perpetrator, neither during the investigation stage nor at trial. He questions that, according to the interview conducted with these persons —contained in police reports—, it can be deduced that the perpetrator of the crime never entered the dwelling, which is corroborated by the ocular inspection (inspección ocular) and collection of ballistic evidence, reason why the affirmation of the a quo, in the sense that the accused entered the dwelling, under the protection of one of the communications, is misguided. He assures that, just as the accused stated at trial, in the communication he was merely boasting about an act he did not commit. He adds that the analysis carried out by the court, based on the second of the communications, in which his client expressed “he played with fire and got burned,” is incorrect, because according to the court the expression is characteristic of someone who enters into danger or exposes themselves to harmful consequences. He details that, according to what was narrated by the accused in the debate, he never received threats from [Nombre 180]. He adds that the police report details that the accused claimed not to recognize the perpetrator of the homicide of “[Nombre 172]”. He assures that “[Nombre 180] would think or thought, why am I going to harm a person who has not harmed me, that is to say [Nombre 010], despite being an eyewitness to the murder of [Nombre 172], he never identified any person, much less [Nombre 180]” [sic]. He maintains that the officers of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial) in charge of the investigation of the homicide of alias “[Nombre 172]”, in an “insidious” manner, made his client believe that the now deceased would possibly attempt against his life. He analyzes that, between the place where the homicide occurred —León XIII— and the accused's dwelling —Santo Domingo Las Cuestas—, there is a considerable distance. He details that there is technical evidence related to the use of the cell phone attributed to the defendant that gives solidity to the defense's position, in the sense that [Nombre 010] did not commit the crime. He questions that the statement of [Nombre 183] was discredited, who affirmed having witnessed the events and that [Nombre 010] was not the responsible party. As a grievance, he states that the disregard of the rules of sound criticism caused a sentence of 18 years of imprisonment to be handed down against his client, to the detriment of his freedom of movement. He requests that his client be acquitted and his release be ordered. In the alternative, he requires the case to be sent back for a new proceeding. The ground is declared without merit. Contrary to what was affirmed by the technical defense, this Court considers that the intellectual basis set out in the appealed judgment, regarding the homicide of the minor [Nombre 180], is sufficient, adequate, and in accordance with the law. According to the proven factual framework, the events occurred on November 17, 2018, at approximately 3:00 p.m., in the Ciudadela León XIII, Tibás, when the aggrieved person was at his home, a place where the defendants [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] (absent) arrived aboard a motorcycle and immediately the first of them got off the motor vehicle, went towards the victim, and shot at him with a 9mm caliber firearm, managing to hit him thirteen times, in the head, neck, thorax, and extremities, which caused his death at the site as a result of a brain laceration. To link the accused [Nombre 010], alias “[Nombre 195]”, to the crime, the trial court took into consideration the following circumstances: (i) Link of the accused to the criminal organization led by alias “[Nombre 084]” from the beginning of the investigation, as responsible for providing security and protection to [Nombre 001], as recorded in report IP-297-EN-18 (cfr. volume I, pages 1 to 87 of the investigation file) and was related at trial by the officers of the Judicial Investigation Agency in charge of the inquiries, which led to the interception of his telephone communications being ordered. (ii) Identification of [Nombre 161], alias “[Nombre 083]”, as another member of the criminal organization, related to [Nombre 010], for performing similar functions to him. Thus, in report IP-297-EN18 it is noted that both accused had photographs together on their social networks (cfr. p. 33); furthermore, that on June 27, 2018, they appeared at the National Arsenal so that [Nombre 010] could recover a previously seized firearm. Likewise, during the course of the investigation, communications between the two were captured. (iii) Statement of [Nombre 196], an officer of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), who, in what is relevant, stated that he was in charge of the initial attention of the homicide scene, where he could observe shell casings on the stairs and sidewalk of the property; also that the victim's body was between the gate and the access door to the dwelling. On the other hand, he referred that another female person was at the site (cfr. p. 148 of the judgment). (iv) Statement of [Nombre 197], judicial investigator of the Extraordinary Duty Investigations Section, who attended the scene, where he found 9mm bullet casings, on the sidewalk forming part of the public road and in the corridor of the dwelling. He detailed that the body was between the entrance and the living room. Likewise, he pointed out that the victim's mother was at the place, who told him that the perpetrators of the crime were two persons dressed in dark suits, without helmets; furthermore, that her son received a phone call asking him to come out and that it was at that moment that the event occurred. He added that in the dwelling there was also a woman, who was hit in her [Nombre 124]. (v) Statement of [Nombre 198], who was accompanying [Nombre 197] and gave a similar version to his. Regarding the location of the body, he said it was at the end of the corridor and entering the dwelling. He located the offended party's mother and another woman at the place. He pointed out that, according to the mother's version, the perpetrators arrived at the site on a motorcycle. (vi) Statement of [Nombre 199], an investigator of the Ocular Inspections and Evidence Collection Section, who stated that he found ballistic evidence from the public road to the final position of the body. Furthermore, he located at least eight bullet holes in the plastic sheet of the access gate and six more in the dwelling, which evidenced a movement from the outside to the inside; in addition, traces of smoke staining on the acrylic sheet, indicating the proximity at which the shots were fired. (vii) Statement of [Nombre 133], who referred to the motive for the homicide that was being handled at the police level. At trial, he alluded to the interview conducted with various witnesses, who would have referred that the offended minor had a romantic relationship with a woman with the alias “[Nombre 200]” and that he had killed her previous partner, in the presence of [Nombre 010] and a subject known as [Nombre 151], reason why he wanted to end the lives of the latter for being the witnesses to the event. (viii) Statement of [Nombre 092], a judicial investigator who recounted the investigation proceedings carried out. He reported on the content of the communications captured from [Nombre 010], in which he informed his romantic partner and a third party who was confined in a penal center, about the homicide of the minor and the connection of that information with the other elements of evidence.\n\n(ix) Police report 28-SH/CI-2020, which records the investigative proceedings and notes the motive for the homicide, specifically the death of [Nombre 202], alias \"[Nombre 172]\", who prior to his death had a romantic relationship with [Nombre 203], alias \"[Nombre 200]\". The investigation into that homicide was processed under summary proceeding no. 18-02653-0042-PE. The report states that a woman named [Nombre 176] told the judicial police that she had heard the offended minor say to a subject known as \"[Nombre 204]\" that he had killed \"[Nombre 172]\" and that he would do the same to [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 151] (cf. fs. 1537 to 1551 of the investigation file). (x) Ocular inspection report, which details the discovery of the body on the rest area at the entrance to the property, shell casings found on the sidewalk, and bullet impacts on the access gate and the structure of the dwelling. Furthermore, this document also yielded that the dwelling is located on a higher plane, approximately 1.20 meters above the public road (cf. fs. 1559 of the investigation file). (xi) Medico-legal report DA-2018-02874-PF, which details the injuries found on the body, corresponding to a total of thirteen impacts from firearm projectiles, distributed as follows: 3 to the skull, 2 to the face, 2 to the neck, 2 to the thorax, 1 to the right hand, and 3 to the right upper extremity. It also described that the trajectory of the majority of these was from front to back and from below upwards. With these findings, it was concluded that the manner of death was homicide, from a medico-legal point of view (cf. volume III, fs. 1568 to 1570 of the investigation file). (xii) Telephone communications intercepted after the event, in which both [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] provide information to third parties about what happened, placing them in time and place, and also allowing the establishment of a mode of execution consistent with the rest of the evidence (due to their importance, these will be discussed in greater detail below). From all these evidentiary elements, the trial court validly concluded that the death of the victim was caused by two people, specifically [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] (absent), who arrived at his home aboard a motorcycle and proceeded to shoot at him, managing to hit him on thirteen occasions, in various parts of the body, including the head, which caused a brain laceration that led to his death. This Chamber considers that the assessment of the evidence that allowed for that conclusion to be reached is adequate, since the analysis of the circumstantial evidence was carried out in a concatenated and joint manner, with the corresponding assignment of probative value that each one deserved. Thus, it was established that the motive for the crime is related to the homicide of [Nombre 202], alias \"[Nombre 172]\", which was allegedly carried out by the offended minor [Nombre 180] in the presence of [Nombre 010] and a third party known as [Nombre 151], which is why the aggrieved party would have intended to end the lives of those witnesses, which ultimately led [Nombre 010] to act first and end the minor's life. The trial court acknowledged that this motive was built solely upon reference testimonies, specifically from interviews gathered by the judicial police, since none of the direct witnesses who could provide information on the matter appeared at trial. However, this Chamber considers that the approach to this aspect was correct, because it was analyzed in light of the remaining evidence and was given credibility insofar as it was consistent with objective elements brought to the process. Without a doubt, the most relevant element available was the content of the intercepted communications from telephone lines [Valor 106] and [Valor 063], attributed, respectively, to [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161]. The use of these telephone numbers by the defendants was accredited by various investigative proceedings extensively set forth in the judgment, which are not revisited in this pronouncement as it is unnecessary, since it is an uncontroverted fact and, in the case of the line attributed to [Nombre 010], the defendant himself accepted being one of the interlocutors in the communications of interest. Sequence 0307048, from November 17, 2018, at 16:10:26 hours, captured the following communication: \"[Nombre 010] calls female. Female says - 'What do you want?', [Nombre 010] says - 'Where are you?', Female says – 'At work', [Nombre 010] says – 'Now, yes, now I can walk around calmly', Female says - 'Why?', [Nombre 010] says – 'Well, I already lifted, you know, him', Female says – 'Swear it', [Nombre 010] says – 'Yes, by God, you should see how I did it', Female says – 'Mae, I can't believe it, tell me', [Nombre 010] says – 'I'm already calling mommy, I took off, I came to Tibas freaked out, I've already showered and everything, and I'm going back down now', Female says – 'Oh, it can't be, and there's the whole swarm of cops', [Nombre 010] says – 'Yes, you should see the swarm of cops, he never showed his face, and I'm there with [Nombre 083]', Female says - 'Where did you get him?', [Nombre 010] says - 'Inside the house, I went in and everything' - Female says - 'Are you crazy?', [Nombre 010] says – 'Yes, you should see the swarm of cops, oh no, but it had to be done, because just imagine', Female says - 'Oh no', [Nombre 010] says – 'Yeah, you'll probably see the photos for sure in a bit', Female says – 'Oh no', [Nombre 010] says – 'You should see how he was saying to me: Mae, mae; and you know', Female says - 'And what did you say to him? Didn't you say anything to him?', [Nombre 010] says – 'I say: Damned son of a bitch, and yes, imagine, and I'm about to go see how everything is down there', Female says - 'But what about you?', [Nombre 010] says – 'Well, no, no, everything's fine, thank God it wasn't on my motorcycle, because my motorcycle is being fixed', Female says - 'On which motorcycle?', [Nombre 010] says – 'Well, no, on one there that they lent us, I'm going to go pick up my motorcycle because that day those big rats called me asking if I had problems with him and fulano and uuh uuh, and I told them no, that I had nothing to do with it', Female says – 'What a shame, huh, well, anyway', [Nombre 010] says – 'Well', Female says – 'Well', [Nombre 010] says – 'I'll see if I can get the photos and send them to you.' Female says – 'Alright.' Communication ends\" [sic] (cf. fs. 64 and 65 of the intervention file. The underlining is supplied). A first element highlighted in the judgment is that the communication occurred a few minutes after the homicide occurred, which was placed at approximately 3:00 p.m. The defendant converses with his romantic partner, named [Nombre 205], to whom he provides various details that were interpreted by the court of first instance (a quo) as follows: \"the defendant [Nombre 010] tells the female 'that now, yes, now I can walk around calmly', this phrase corresponds with what the judicial police officer [Nombre 133] indicated when he stated that the victim had manifested wanting to attack the integrity of [Nombre 010]; [Nombre 010] continues by indicating that 'I already lifted, you know, him', a phrase that in the slang lexicon of Costa Rican neighborhoods is used to refer to the fact that a person was killed or kidnapped or harmed, and from the context of what happened, it is an unequivocal sign that he was referring to the death of the victim, since immediately the female asks him to swear it and [Nombre 010] responds 'yes, by God, you should see how I did it', meaning then, in effect, he confirms that he had murdered the person; in addition to this, the accused [Nombre 010] told the female that the person 'never showed his face' and that he was with '[Nombre 083]', again a circumstance that links them directly, since as we narrated lines above, alias '[Nombre 083]' is fully identified as [Nombre 161], and according to the version of the judicial police, the victim likewise wanted to end the life of this person; continuing with the analysis of the communication, we see that the phrase 'never showed his face' in the slang lexicon of Costa Rican neighborhoods is used to refer to a person not being seen or not being in a specific place; in addition to this, the female asks him 'where did you get him?'\".\n\nAnd the response of [Name 010] was: “I went right into his *chante* and everything” (…), a specific circumstance that details that, in effect, as the ocular inspection and the findings at the scene show, the victim was killed outside his dwelling (the word “chante,” as it is known in Costa Rican slang, means a dwelling), inside a sort of mezzanine or hallway prior to entering the main door of his house; the accused [Name 010] then refers to the manner of execution of the victim by mentioning that the person was saying something to him and he was indicating “damn son of a bitch,” thus then referring to the hatred he showed against the victim, but also from this call it can be established that, in effect, at the time that [Name 010] referred to “there’s a *mosquero*,” (a phrase that in Costa Rican language refers to there being many people in a place or a special situation where there is a crowd of people), and it was indeed the situation of attending an event outside the norm, such as the homicide of the victim, and it was the moment when the authorities were still addressing the crime scene, if we see police report number 1266SITTE-IP-2018, it establishes that the Public Force officer [Name 196], stated through an interview that he was the one guarding the site and that at around 15:10 he was alerted via radio frequency of the victim's death and a woman wounded in the left leg, so it is known that the time of the attack against the victim occurred approximately at 15:00 hours as referred to by the judicial police in the header of the aforementioned report […] regarding the time of the homicide, it is reported by the Ocular Inspections officers, who detail that the arrival at the site for the ocular inspection was at 16:00 hours and just after that time, as we mentioned, the communication at 16:10 hours takes place, which is a coincidence with the homicide event, since [Name 010] told the female (interlocutor) that: “I took off and came to Tibás in a rush, I already bathed and everything and now I’m going back down,” thus then he clearly identifies that the homicide action he committed was in the Tibás canton and if we see when he refers to going back down, it is toward the Ciudadela León Trece, because he continues by saying: “I’m already calling mommy, I took off and came to Tibás in a rush, I already bathed and everything and now I’m going back down, Female says – Ah it can’t be and the whole *mosquero* is there,” in clear reference to the police presence and the attention to the homicide, one more reason that the court confirms his direct involvement in the murder, which is additionally compounded by the fact that [Name 010] tells the female that “now you’ll surely see the photos,” clearly alluding to the news in the press media of the victim’s death, the accused continues, [Name 010] telling the woman “that he is all good, that it's a good thing it wasn't on my motorcycle, because my motorcycle is being fixed, Female says - On which motorcycle?, [Name 010] says – Well, on one they lent us, I’m going to go pick up my motorcycle because that day when those big snitches called me asking if I had problems with that guy”; this is a finding of importance in the dialogue with the female, because from the dynamic of what was related by the accused, it is noted that he makes very clear reference that they committed the homicide on a motorcycle and which was not his property, as the same person states it, this aspect is of utmost importance because of the people interviewed by the judicial police, at the crime scene, the first versions allude that the people who murdered the victim had arrived at his dwelling on a motorcycle, as indicated by the witnesses [Name 206] and [Name 197], who interviewed the victim’s mother and the first version she provided was that two people in dark suits without helmets had arrived, and the lady indicated she could not recognize those who shot, since they were wearing helmets; this version collected by the judicial police of the dynamic of the act, is absolutely coincident with the dialogue held by the accused [Name 010] with the female to whom he confesses the homicide of the victim and indicated to her that to arrive at his house, he traveled together with [Name 161] on a motorcycle, details that ultimately coincide with this first version and also with the one provided by the judicial police's reference witness [Name 207], who although was not part of the testimonial evidence of the adversarial process, because she was not found, in police report number 28-SH/CI-2018, her interview is mentioned in which she stated that the people who had murdered the victim appeared on a motorcycle; this circumstance of the means by which the people who murdered the victim traveled was a point of discussion in the trial, however, for the court there is no doubt that from the dialogue indicated by [Name 010], it was indeed on a motorcycle how they arrived at the victim's dwelling and he did it together with [Name 161], which confirms a homogeneous and consistent version in accordance with what was established from the moment of the attack suffered by the victim” [sic] (cfr. fs. 939 to 942 of the judgment). This Chamber adopts the analysis carried out by the a quo, insofar as the communication provides details that are consistent, not only with the information gathered by the judicial police, with respect to the motive for the homicide and which is the reason why [Name 010] tells the woman that now he can walk around calmly, but it is also consistent with objective evidence, such as the result of the ocular inspection carried out at the scene and which places the body of the deceased at the entrance of his dwelling and ballistic evidence from the public road to the hallway of the property, which agrees with the statement of the accused, that the event took place “inside the *chante*,” that is, in his dwelling and that he had entered the place. Furthermore, the reference “come see how I did it” [sic], is a statement characteristic of someone who operated with excess, which also agrees with the finding of thirteen bullet impacts, some of them on the head and face of the victim. Just as the a quo, this Chamber considers that the immediacy with which the accused transmitted the information to his sentimental partner, allows us to deduce that it was because he lived the event and not because he obtained the information from references of third parties, police, or press media. Prior to the transcribed communication, at 15:17 hours, a call was recorded from telephone line [Value 063], used by [Name 161], alias “[Name 083],” sequence (0314515) with the following content: “[Name 083] called a female and said - well love, female said - well, third party extra phone said - what did [Name 208] do?, [Name 083] said to female - what are you doing?, female said - nothing, third party extra phone said - [Name 208] what did he do?, already?, [Name 083] said to third party extra phone - go before they enter, third party extra phone - huh?, [Name 083] said - go before the motorcycles enter, third party extra phone said something that is not understood, [Name 083] said - just you, you big dummy, third party extra phone says something that is not understood - [Name 083] said - if not, no but just you, third party extra phone said - I say that the deal will be that this guy sent more people, [Name 083] said – man what a big dummy (says something that is not understood), third party speaks off - phone however what he says is not understood, [Name 083] said to third party extra phone surely they ran into each other last night female said - what, [Name 083] said - well they say the guy who killed [Name 172] killed [Name 173], female how’s that?, [Name 083] said - yes, female said - Where? , [Name 083] said - at home, female said - where does he live?, [Name 083] said - there on the other side by the main road, female said - and are there ambulances and things like that?, [Name 083] said - well no no they already killed him they say he was left right there, female said - mmm, [Name 083] said - yes my love, female said – hopefully, [Name 083] said – was calling him, female said - mmm, [Name 083] said - it was his turn, female said - yes, [Name 083] said - honestly he killed [Name 172] it was a stupidity, female said - yes; well my love I’ll leave you I’m going to see how the tape is there because those people are already coming; they say goodbye” [sic] (cfr. f. 633 of the judgment). Although the accused does not place himself as one of the perpetrators of the act, he equally provides information that is compatible with the scene and the motive established by the judicial police. By the time the communication took place, few minutes had elapsed since the act, therefore, again, it is logical that the handling of the details expressed on this occasion by alias “[Name 083],” was because he was one of the participants in the crime.\n\nThe lower court (a quo), regarding that communication, pointed out: \"from that call the Court was able to establish several important circumstances related to the homicide of the victim, first that the communication took place at 15:17 hours on November 17, 2018, that is, just a few minutes after the time the event was reported to the police (corroborating that the time of the homicide was at 15:00 hours), also that alias '[Name 083]' clearly mentioned the location of the homicide and immediate details regarding that the victim did not require emergency care, because during the communication the female asked him if there were ambulances and he told her 'no they already killed him, they say he was left there', from the context of that communication the absent accused [Name 161] is certain of the victim's death and as we see by correlating this communication with those of the indictee [Name 010], they have absolute certainty of what was done, but additionally, of vital importance is that alias '[Name 083]' [Name 161], referred to an aspect that relates them to the motive for the homicide of the victim, and that is when he is telling the female he mentions: 'they say they killed [Name 173] who killed [Name 172]', two aspects stand out from this dialogue, the first, that he refers to the deceased person as '[Name 173]', which clearly in Costa Rican language is a reference to a young person or minor, and indeed the victim was a 17-year-old person, the second, is that he gives a transcendental detail as he refers that said victim had killed a person nicknamed '[Name 172]', this data is directly related to what was narrated in the debate and indicated earlier, by the judicial investigator [Name 133] from the Homicide Section, who had referred that according to the investigations conducted, the victim [Name 180] had allegedly killed a person named [Name 175], and that at the moment he murdered this person [Name 010] and another subject known as [Name 151] remained as witnesses to the event, these same circumstances were described in report number 28-SH/CI-2018, on folio 1545 verso, in the section identified as 'Common Causes', which explains and details the relationship between both homicides, but of greater importance is that the victim of the common cause was known by the alias of '[Name 172]', it is stated thus in said report when a woman named [Name 176] was interviewed, which although it is true she did not give her version in the adversarial proceedings, the O.I.J. officer [Name 133] referred to it, so that it is unavoidably related to the dialogue of the prior communication in which [Name 161] tells the female that the deceased was 'the [Name 181] who killed alias [Name 172]', this aspect is transcendental because only someone who had been aware of the murder of the other victim could refer to it and it therefore directly coincides with the action carried out by him and [Name 010], since there was knowledge that the victim [Name 180] wanted to execute [Name 010] and another subject named [Name 151], which clearly confirms the motive for his death at the hands of the accused [Name 010] who sought the help of the absent accused [Name 161] to carry it out\" (cf. ff. 945 to 946 of the judgment). As previously indicated, although the motive for the homicide was reconstructed from hearsay witnesses, the prior communication provides clear corroboration thereof, hence the use of that information as support for the conviction is valid. The court added to the above that in the communications with sequences 0229869, from the line of [Name 010], and 0330876 from the right used by [Name 161], conversations were captured between these investigated individuals with someone identified as '[Name 151]', which again is consistent with the information gathered by the judicial police, in the sense of the existence of a person with that name or alias, related to [Name 010] and who would have been a witness to the homicide of alias '[Name 172]'. In this regard, the judgment states: \"the person identified with the name [Name 151] maintained a direct link with the accused and therefore what was stated by the witness interviewed by officers of the Judicial Investigation Agency, regarding that the victim wanted to kill this person and it bears mentioning that both his name and that of [Name 010] are not names in common use, so the police theory and what was stated by the same accused [Name 010] is coincident\" (cf. f. 947 of the judgment). The following communication analyzed in the first instance ruling is that identified with sequence number 0307179, from 19:09 hours on November 17,\n\n2018, with the content detailed as follows: \"[Name 010] called [Name 083] and said to him 'where are you?', [Name 083] said 'why?', [Name 010] said 'because man the pigs are inside your alameda, [Name 083] said 'how many?', [Name 010] said 'two boxes dude', [Name 083] said 'oh I'm here at my house I'd better not go out', [Name 010] said 'are you in there?', [Name 083] said 'yes', [Name 010] said 'just in case because they're up to something weird', [Name 083] said 'but are they down there or what?', [Name 010] said 'no no, there's a patrol car right outside and one went inside dude'; they say goodbye\" (cf. f. 947 of the judgment). From that contact it is corroborated that both subjects were keeping track of the police presence at the site, which corresponds to the attitude typical of people who know they are responsible for the event that prompted the mobilization of police forces.\n\nFinally, under sequence 0309432, a communication was recorded, generated at 3:22 p.m. on November 21, 2018, from the telephone line in use by the defendant [Name 010]: «[Name 010] said – man yesterday we were out on a job if we'd pulled it off we would've made some sweet cash, subject said – with clitoris?, [Name 010] said – yeah man, subject said – mmm what a mother..., [Name 010] said – no but wait supposedly the thing is still on, subject said – is she alive? is she still alive?, [Name 010] said – yeah you idiot, subject said – yeah yeah you'll see you'll see if it's gonna happen, [Name 010] said – I hope so, subject said – and were you taking the jungle boy?, [Name 010] said – yeah, subject said – mmm yeah that son of a bitch is gonna be a millionaire soon, [Name 010] said – I already talked to [Name 178], subject said – and what does he say?, [Name 010] said – I tell you, god forbid [Name 074] was there, god forbid, because supposedly it was some guy who spent three hundred, subject said – uh-huh, [Name 010] said – yeah but in cash, subject said – uh-huh, [Name 010] said – yeah so supposedly they had to, you know, take the guys, you know, squeeze them, then [Name 065] says god forbid that fool had come because you know, two smacks to those sons of bitches and they give us the cash, subject said – uh-huh, [Name 010] said – yeah yeah, subject said – yeah man what a bummer, huh, [Name 010] said – well no no but keep your mouth shut, faggot, subject said – yeah yeah yeah yeah but but couldn't you do the thing or did you burn it?, [Name 010] said – no, supposedly the guys aren't there and the thing, subject said – mmm okay okay okay okay, yeah, (a call notification from a penitentiary center was heard), I'll get out soon don't worry, [Name 010] said – yeah soon, subject said – wait so you can see I'm going with even more hatred, [Name 010] said and they hit the guy so good and they hit the guy so good, subject said – I was gritting my teeth so hard when I found out, [Name 010] said – he looked exquisite, subject said – so delicious, how many how many, [Name 010] said – like twelve, like five he took to the face, subject said – how nice how nice, [Name 010] said – that guy was left looking exquisite, supposedly on the hit it was going to be [Name 083], me and [Name 178], subject said – on his thing, [Name 010] said – yeah man you idiot, subject said – fuck that little shit thought that with a little doll, well then yeah, [Name 010] said – well no no it's that the guy, man, the guy was just arriving in the neighborhood, faggot, subject said – that's why that's why but that snot-nosed son of a bitch thought that well then yeah that that, [Name 010] said – no and listen, [Name 178] was saying god forbid [Name 074] was here because that guy would already be down, subject said – no man, you idiot, (a call notification from a penitentiary center was heard), he would have been resting a long time ago, [Name 010] said – ah, subject said – he would have been resting a long time ago, [Name 010] said – imagine how he would have left him, subject said – he would have sent him straight to hell, [Name 010] said – ah, subject said – he would have sent him straight to hell, [Name 010] said – how many?, subject said – an entire thirty-two round magazine (they laugh), [Name 010] said – imagine how he would've left him like Swiss cheese, subject said – ah well imagine one more hole and he's a colander (they laugh), [Name 010] said – imagine (unintelligible), subject said – god forbid he had gotten ahold of him, [Name 010] said – you know what they called that guy?, subject said – what?, [Name 010] said – cheese, man, Mr. Cheese, subject said – they called him the moon, what a brute, [Name 010] said – for being an idiot, right, subject said – for playing with fire (a call notification from a penitentiary center was heard) subject said – he who plays with fire gets burned, [Name 010] said – and he got burned, burned to a crisp, subject said – and they burned him but red hot, hey listen what I was going to tell you uh do me a favor get me the number of his dad, [Name 010] said – whose dad? Ah uh-huh uh-huh, subject said – get it for me please, see, I think he changed it and I need to talk to [Name 179], [Name 010] said – okay, they say goodbye» [sic] (cf. fs. 948 to 949 of the judgment). In this communication, the accused provided information to a third party who was incarcerated about the manner in which he killed the victim.\n\nThe court, astutely, made the following interpretation: \"it is certain that this is [Name 010], who is speaking with his interlocutor, a person deprived of liberty, whom the judicial police link to this criminal structure called \"[Name 074]\", and who, from the context of the communication, knew the other members at liberty, to whom he recounts the manner in which he murdered the victim. Upon assessing it, we see he gives unmistakable details that the one who was killing the victim was the accused [Name 010], who said: \"and how sweetly they hit the dude,\" here it is denoted that they speak of harm to a person, and immediately the person deprived of liberty said: \"that he even clenched his teeth when he realized,\" a statement of congratulation toward his peer and simultaneously of hatred and vengeance. Immediately, [Name 010] responded: \"it was exquisite,\" in that context of the dialogue it occurred in a good way and [Name 010] was satisfied with his death. Then the individual asked: \"how many, how many?,\" and [Name 010] responded: \"like twelve, like five he took to the face\"… this last phrase is of vital importance, first because it is clear they refer to a firearm and the number of shots fired, and also because the accused [Name 010] gives a specific detail, which only the one who shot the victim could know with the precision he mentions it, since if we go to the Legal Medical Opinion of the autopsy performed on the victim, number DA-2018-02874-PF (visible on folios 1568 to 1570), we find that in the section on \"injuries found,\" the victim had thirteen wounds produced by firearm projectiles all over his body and that according to the distribution of the same, 5 of these were at the level of the head, being three in the skull and two in the face, then two more in the neck. Furthermore, according to the Ocular Inspection Report number 0829-SIORI-IPO-2018 (visible on folio 1559 Volume III of the Investigation File,) a total of twelve casings were located on the sidewalk (evidence items 2,3,4,5 and 6), as stated in the section on \"location of evidence.\" All of this gives a very exact approximation of the evidence found with the detail that the accused [Name 010] gives to his interlocutor when he is recounting the method of execution of the homicide and its coincidence with the established evidence from the crime scene. Moreover, the interlocutor individual \"[Name 074]\" responds \"how nice, how nice,\" emphasizing the action executed with a nuance of congratulation, and [Name 010] responds \"that one ended up exquisite,\" which definitively brought joy to the accused, who also laughed with his interlocutor (as heard in the audio recording that the Court examined). Upon reaching this point, we see how the communication continues, and as if this were not enough, the accused [Name 010] in this communication again refers to the motive or the motivation for ending the victim's life, and here it is worth saying that what was previously mentioned in other communications is reaffirmed, both by the absent accused [Name 161] and by the accused [Name 010], since in the following excerpt from the communication, [Name 010] tells his interlocutor what that motive was, mentioning that: \"supposedly in the lineup it was going to be [Name 083], me, and [Name 178]\" and the person deprived of liberty responds \"in his thing\" and [Name 010] reaffirms that yes. Regarding the indication or phrase \"in the lineup,\" this is typical in the context of dialogues in our environment, to refer that someone is going to die, or they want to kill them, and therefore the phrase gains importance when [Name 010] indicates to his interlocutor that the ones who supposedly were going to go \"in the lineup,\" meaning in context to die or they wanted to kill them, were alias \"[Name 083]\" [Name 161] and him. Indisputably, in the communication everything that the judicial police itself had been referring to from the beginning of the investigation into the death of the victim [Name 180] is reaffirmed, when lines before we mentioned that there were common causes and they were related to the death of a person alias \"[Name 172],\" that apparently the victim [Name 180] had killed, and that the latter was the one who maintained a threat against [Name 010] and [Name 161], for being witnesses to that homicide, all of which is consistent with the context of the communications already referred to by the accused [Name 010] and the absent accused [Name 161]. But from the foregoing it results that the final dialogue of the charged [Name 010] with the person deprived of liberty heightens that motivation to kill the victim, since both mention the following: \"fucking guy thought because of a little doll it was all good, [Name 010] said – well no it's not that the man, dude, the man was just arriving to the neighborhood, individual said – that's why, that's why, but that little son of a bitch kid thought that it was all good that that, [Name 010] said – no, and listen, [Name 178] was saying God forbid if [Name 074] were here because that guy would already be down, individual said – no dude, (a call announcement from a penitentiary center was heard), he would have been resting a while ago, [Name 010] said -ah, individual said – he would have been resting a while ago, [Name 010] said – imagine how he would have stopped him, individual said – he would have sent him to fucking hell, [Name 010] said - ah , individual said - he would have sent him to hell.\" We see that both refer to the fact that the victim was just arriving to the neighborhood, which in the context is the Ciudadela León Trece, and also both identify him as \"kid,\" which clearly in Costa Rican language refers to a young person or a minor, and indeed the victim was a 17-year-old person. Here it is worth saying that [Name 161] referred to him in the same way in the communication with a female, when he identified him as \"[Name 181]\", which we developed previously; and both in the last phrases of their communication refer to the fact that if the person deprived of liberty (interlocutor- [Name 074]) had been at the scene, in the same sense he would have murdered the victim with thirty shots and that they would send him to hell or he would be resting, all in reference to when a person dies or is murdered. And then they mock by indicating that they would have left him like a cheese, and the accused [Name 010] stated that the victim was called \"[Name 357]\" and the individual says \"the moon,\" in clear reference to the holes that were inflicted on the victim the day of his death. Finally, both reach the conclusion that \"for being dumb and for being an idiot\" and because \"he who plays with fire gets burned,\" and the accused [Name 010] stated that the victim \"got burned, totally burned,\" and the person deprived of liberty responded \"they burned him but red hot.\" Once more they show their congratulation for his death and demonstrate the affirmation of the motive for the crime, since both refer to \"he played with fire and got burned,\" a phrase that is common to identify in the context of a conversation, when a person enters into danger or exposes themselves to harmful consequences for themselves. And definitively that was the reason why the charged [Name 010] killed the victim, since he knew of his interest in killing him and alias \"[Name 083]\" [Name 161], as he stated in said communication\" [sic] (cf. fs. 950 to 953 of the judgment). Again, through the accused [Name 010]'s own expressions, the police hypothesis regarding the motive for the homicide is accredited, by referring to the victim's intention to kill him and alias [Name 083], for which reason they decided to get ahead and end his life. Furthermore, the number of shots becomes a piece of information of vital importance, because the defendant relates that it was about 12 and that at least 5 hit him in the face, in clear concordance with the injuries found on the victim's body.\n\nAs has been detailed, the body of evidence was adequately addressed by the *a quo* and from it, it is valid to conclude the criminal responsibility of the defendant [Nombre 010] for the death of the minor [Nombre 180], without any defects being noted in the reasoning set forth by the court. Now, the defense questions that the participation of its client was established solely based on two telephone communications; however, the account provided dismisses that claim. As already indicated, while it is true that the telephone communications are the most significant evidentiary element, they are not the only one, since, through the police reports, the testimony of the investigators in charge of the case, as well as the result of the autopsy performed on the body of the victim and the evidence collected at the scene, it was possible to corroborate that, in effect, [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] were the perpetrators of the act. The communications are actually the evidentiary element that brings together the remaining circumstantial evidence and the construction exercise carried out by the trial court on this matter was exhaustive and adequate, therefore there is no defect to reproach the judgment regarding evidentiary sufficiency. The defense seems to understand that the proof of the crime could only be made through direct evidence, which completely disregards that in our criminal procedural system the principle of freedom of evidence governs, which allows a fact to be proven using any evidentiary element that has been lawfully obtained, precisely what happened in this case, in which the investigation conducted by the police was carried out in accordance with the law and there is no reason to consider that the truth was falsified or data altered with the intent to harm the defendant. On the contrary, those in charge of the investigation provided information that was gathered as part of their duties and in that context appeared at trial to relate what they knew about the case and the steps taken. Regarding the fact that the mother of the victim and the other woman who was at the scene, who is [Nombre 207], did not identify the perpetrator of the act, it should be noted that this circumstance was known to the authorities from the beginning of the investigation, because in the initial interview conducted with them by the judicial police, both stated that they did not observe the perpetrators of the act, which is why the Public Ministry even refused to conduct a physical lineup of people with the defendants during the investigation phase, as it was a completely irrelevant investigative step (cf. f. 3168 of the main file). Again, the defense falls into a bias, suggesting that only a direct identification of its client as the perpetrator would have the power to defeat his presumption of innocence, thereby ignoring the existence of other equally valuable and compelling elements for those purposes, as has been explained. The defense errs in pointing out that the trial court deemed it proven that the perpetrator entered the victim’s house. On the contrary, the lower court’s ruling clearly stated that the attackers “*did not enter the interior of the dwelling*” (cf. f. 928 of the judgment). However, what was indeed established is that the accused [Nombre 010] entered the property, although not the interior of the dwelling, not only because he himself stated so in the intercepted communications, but also due to the location of shell casings inside the property and near the body of the victim, which was on a higher plane in relation to the street, implying that these pieces of evidence could only have reached that place through the perpetrator’s action of crossing the property boundary and ascending to where the victim was while shooting at him. Regarding the claim that the defendant’s statements were motivated by boasting about an act he did not commit, the court completely dismissed that defensive thesis for the reasons set forth *supra*, but also because it deemed it proven that, throughout the investigation, other communications from [Nombre 010] also existed in which he related other events of a similar nature, for example the one identified with sequence 0319099, which even led the judicial police and the Public Ministry to point him out as one of the persons in charge of taking the lives of those who opposed the criminal organization. On the other hand, as indicated, the information that was transmitted by the accused in the call with his romantic partner, due to its temporal proximity, could only have been known by someone who participated in the act. Regarding the fact that the defendant [Nombre 010] never received threats from the victim, this is a circumstance that was not part of the Public Ministry’s theory of the case, and therefore it is completely irrelevant. What was handled during the investigation phase as the motive for the crime is that both [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] would have been witnesses to the homicide of alias “[Nombre 172]” at the hands of the victim and that for this reason, he wanted to kill them, something he would have expressed to a third party. That information is precisely corroborated by the transcribed communications, insofar as the accused told his partner that he could now be at ease, while he indicated to a third party that the victim intended to attack him and alias “[Nombre 083],” so this is information adequately corroborated by the defendant himself. Thus, this Chamber also finds no deficiency in the analysis regarding what the court pointed out concerning the expression of [Nombre 010], who stated to a third party that the aggrieved party “*played with fire and got burned*,” because this statement is completely consistent with the historical event reconstructed at trial, according to which [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] killed the victim as a preventive measure upon learning that he wanted to end their lives. For the same reason, what the defense alluded to, regarding the fact that the deceased had no reason to kill [Nombre 010], is a mere conjecture, which contrasts with the forcefulness of the evidence presented at trial and which reveals a different picture. As for the claim that the judicial police would have made its client believe that the minor victim wanted to attack his life, this is also speculation by the defense. The information detailed at trial regarding the motive for the homicide was obtained as part of the investigation tasks carried out by the judicial police after the death of the minor victim. On the other hand, regarding the defensive thesis that points out that at the time of the events the defendant [Nombre 010] was in the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia, based on the activation of cell towers for the cellular phone he used, the judgment adequately explains the way in which that information should be interpreted, since it is not possible to derive exact locations from those studies, but rather approximate ones, which must be contrasted with other evidentiary elements, because cellular phones do not necessarily connect to the nearest cell tower when a phone call is made, since if that one is saturated, it will switch to the next. In that sense, the judgment states: “*the theory of the case of the technical and material defense, which specifically [Nombre 010] declared prior to the conclusions of his lawyer, the defender Mr. Víctor Rodríguez De Sarraga (which will be detailed later), being that to give content to this section an extract of that statement is analyzed, indicating among other things [Nombre 010]: “that day that the event happens I was in the cuesta de Santo Domingo by some apartments, I was with another female”, the court has analyzed this and while indeed there are two communications that were reflected in the previously mentioned OPO report, between 15:38 and 15:41, those two communications were with the use of the cell tower identified in the criminal analysis report as “La Cuesta San Domingo”, therefore the defense tries to ensure that the accused [Nombre 010] was not at the crime scene location, that is, in La León Trece, however, the court has carried out a detailed analysis of the flow of those communications and what is shown is that the use of a cell tower will depend on the saturation of each one of them, which is a matter already consolidated by experience in various judicial cases of this same nature, in which it has been explained abundantly that the use of cell towers will depend on the saturation they maintain and the user communication traffic that exists in the place where a specific cell tower is located, hence it is not always the cell tower closest to the place of habitual use where the person uses the cellular device that will be identified, the clearest example being that in the same report 701-OPO/UAC/ART-2019, on page 5, the use of cell towers by the cellular service used by [Nombre 010] is illustrated, and as we can observe, indeed at 15:41:30 the use of the cell tower “Cuesta Rojas Santo Domingo” was maintained, but three minutes and thirty seconds after this, the accused [Nombre 010] is using the identified cell tower M01/107 “Estadio Ricardo Saprissa”, so it is evident that this affirmation will not always be a definitive factor to take into account, especially since, as we have been reviewing, the time of the homicide was 38 minutes before the use of that cell tower by [Nombre 010], who could well have been in La León Trece, since the time of the homicide was at three o’clock in the afternoon*” [sic] (cf. fs. 940 to 941 of the judgment).\n\nFinally, the defense challenges the discrediting of the statement of [Nombre 183], who appeared as a defense witness and testified at trial that he witnessed the events and that the perpetrator was a person of color. Regarding this statement, this Chamber agrees with the analysis conducted by the lower court (a quo), which determined that it was a complacent and tailored statement intended to try to provide an alternative theory of the events and thereby create a doubt that would favor the accused. However, the sufficiency and forcefulness of the circumstantial evidence brought to the process completely displaces that possibility. The contested ruling correctly points out: \"if what the party intended was to provide a differentiated version of what happened with the death of the victim, for the court, upon comparing the statement given in the adversarial hearing by Mr. [Nombre 183], with what is contained in the evidence, documentary, testimonial, expert, and the telephone interceptions, the court cannot give it the intended value; first, the rules of logic and experience tell us that the witness is indeed lying, because in the debate he refers to some elements that have not been previously provided, and although the witness presented himself as a person who did not show emotion or nervousness, it is because ultimately his testimony was structured to coincide with a defensive hypothesis or alibi, but it succumbs to the evidentiary reality that the Court has clearly from the communications of the accused [Nombre 010] himself, that it is he who, together with the absent defendant [Nombre 161], killed the victim; the divergences of the witness's account with the elements of evidence are of such magnitude in this case, since unlike other occasions or situations where there are two conflicting versions, the point is that in this case the contradiction of the witness's testimony is with the defendant [Nombre 010] and his communications for the day of the homicide and subsequent ones, in which he reveals and recounts how he murdered the underage victim; this primary aspect, beyond whether or not we give credibility to a testimony, does not hold because there is a reality of the case that does not support contradiction\" (cf. f. 963 of the judgment). This Chamber agrees that the defense witness's statement was not credible and, for that reason, cannot give rise to a doubt that operates in favor of the justiciable [Nombre 010]. Based on the circumstances set forth, this Court concludes that the intellectual reasoning of the lower court's ruling, regarding the homicide committed to the detriment of the minor [Nombre 180], is sufficient, adequate, and in accordance with the law, without observing flaws in reasoning or in the weighing of evidence that must be declared. Consequently, upon dismissing the complaints of the defense, the appropriate course is to declare the ground without merit.\n\nXX. Second ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, in favor of the justiciable [Nombre 010]. He alleges \"Insufficient reasoning for the imposed penalty.\" He considers that the penalty of 18 years of imprisonment for the crime of homicide is excessive and disproportionate, because it is the maximum extreme. He asserts that the personal conditions of his client were not taken into consideration, specifically that he is part of a family unit, is a young person, and has no criminal record. He deems that numerals 71 of the Penal Code and 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code were violated. He seeks a reduction of the sanction, and therefore requests the referral of the case file. By majority vote, the ground is granted. For reasons different from those stated in the appeal, the imposed penalty is annulled, and the case is ordered referred back to trial for a new substantiation. Once the reasoning for the sanction established for [Nombre 010] for the crime of simple homicide committed to the detriment of [Nombre 180] was analyzed, this Chamber deems that it presents severe deficiencies that entail its nullity. The Public Prosecutor's Office, provisionally, stated in the accusation that the acts committed to the detriment of the minor [Nombre 180] constituted a qualified homicide. However, the lower court (a quo) concluded that the aggravating circumstances of perfidy (alevosía) or cruelty (ensañamiento) were not described, and therefore reclassified the accredited action to a simple homicide, which carries a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 years of imprisonment. From the above punitive range, the trial court opted to impose the maximum extreme of the sanction, that is, 18 years of imprisonment. Under the foregoing circumstances, a first assessment that must be made is that, the higher the penalty to be imposed, the margin of discretion increases and, therefore, the risk of arbitrariness rises, which is why greater rigor is required in the reasoning of the sanction, allowing the parties, as well as the public, to have certainty, clarity, and better control over the reasons that led the administrator of justice to make a reproach of such intensity for the offense committed. From the reading of the section titled \"Penalty regarding the crime of simple homicide thus re-classified,\" this Chamber observes that the lower court (a quo) incurred in deficient and contradictory reasoning when determining the sanction to impose on the justiciable [Nombre 010]. Note that the defendant is reproached for his membership in the criminal organization led by alias \"[Nombre 084],\" a circumstance that would have led him to engage in criminal acts of homicide; that is, the criminal framework from which the crime was committed is taken into account for setting the maximum penalty provided for the crime of simple homicide. However, it is immediately clarified that the death of the minor [Nombre 180]—for which the sanction is imposed—is totally unrelated to the activities of the gang and was motivated by a desire of [Nombre 010] to take revenge or take justice into his own hands. Furthermore, he is accused of affecting the legal rights of other persons, through extortions or deprivations of liberty, and even various communications are cited where situations of this nature are evidenced, yet none of these were charged in this case and, therefore, no criminal liability was attributed to him for them. It is indicated that the defendant is a young person, with the capacity to adjust his conduct to the law and even that he has \"significant leadership,\" and at the same time it states that he is a victim of his own circumstances, for residing in an area of social risk, which would have led him to engage in illicit activities. This last argument even seems to note a situation of vulnerability that could give rise to a lesser reproach, so the contradiction is evident when it is used as an argument to increase the sanction. The crime was classified as a simple homicide; however, the lower court (a quo) includes references that seem to allude to perfidious action (alevosía), that is, although it convicts for the simple offense, it seems to sanction based on the aggravated offense. This type of reasoning is inadmissible. The aspects that were not included by the Public Prosecutor's Office intentionally, due to oversight, or any other circumstance, cannot be used in the judgment to prejudice the accused person, which is exactly what happens in this case. If the conduct that was held as accredited corresponds to a simple homicide, it is based on that conduct that the reproach of the defendant must be made. On the other hand, reference is also made to drug trafficking activity, and he is questioned for having engaged in that illicit commercial activity, despite the fact that the corresponding reproach trial had already been raised for such criminality; that is, a double punishment is conducted for the same acts. As a result of the foregoing circumstances, the remaining arguments allude to circumstances favorable to the accused—having a clean record, being young, having a family, among others—, the family impact on the justiciable as a result of the events, and the circumstances that mediated in the commission of the crime, which do not allow the 18-year prison sentence to be considered justified. The noted deficiencies can in no way be resolved by this Chamber, because it would imply assuming functions that are proper to another jurisdictional authority; hence the need to annul the established penalty is imposed. Based on the circumstances set forth, by majority vote, the ground is granted; consequently, in accordance with numerals 142, 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 71 of the Penal Code, the sanction imposed on [Nombre 010] for the crime of simple homicide committed to the detriment of the minor [Nombre 180] is annulled, and the case is ordered referred back to the Criminal Court of the Specialized Jurisdiction for Organized Crime, so that, with a different panel, it may proceed to substantiate this point anew. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\nDISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.- With profound respect, I depart from the decision of the majority of this appellate chamber (ad quem), and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare the second ground of the appeal by the private defense of the defendant [Nombre 010] without merit. While the court made reference to other events – extortions and deprivations of liberty –, which are clearly not valid arguments for the reasoning of the penalty for the homicide committed by [Nombre 010], my view is that when carrying out a hypothetical suppression exercise, the result is a broad, objective motivation strictly linked to the act, constituting a correct, just, and proportional reproach that is indeed aligned with the parameters of Article 71 of the Penal Code. In the seventh considerando of the judgment, the lower court (a quo) made a broad assessment of why [Nombre 010] deserved the maximum penalty for the simple homicide committed, this being a decision that, from my point of view, conforms to the high degree of culpability inherent to the convicted person, who committed a crime against life regarding which there are sufficient aspects, all of them duly appraised in the ruling, that present [Nombre 010] as an active subject who planned the attack, who did it for revenge to anticipate what he believed would be an equally violent act by the victim against him, who knew that his victim used to watch his back, and who executed the homicide when he saw the opportunity to proceed, for which he took advantage of the fact that the affected person was vulnerable in his mother's house, murdering a minor in a merciless and notably violent manner, as he shot him thirteen times. Furthermore, after the fact, [Nombre 010] boasted of his actions and mocked the victim, making clear his high contempt for human life, his ease in incurring an event that illustrates the concepts of brutality and cruelty, from which the lack of scruples of [Nombre 010] is easily inferred, as well as the absence of remorse on his part. All of this was correctly assessed by the trial court, by affirming that [Nombre 010] executed the homicide: \"…with total cold blood and in a perverse manner…\", specifically assessing: \"…the manner in which it was executed, while he was trusting, inside his home, a place where an average person remains comfortable and which is the living space with his mother, as was accredited, the accused [Nombre 010] taking advantage to suddenly break into the interior of the dwelling (corridor) and discharge the firearm…\", the court emphasizing that the defendant boasted of his crime because he said: \"…you should have seen how I left him\", and thereby ensured that the victim had no possibility of reaction, but also in that same communication, he told this female \"that he could now walk calmly\", alluding to the threat he had received from the victim and that was the motivation for the murder, and finally in said communication, as if it were a trophy of his actions, he referred to the woman that: \"I'm going to see if I can get the photos and send them to you…\".\n\nLikewise, the judgment reproaches [Nombre 010] that: “…the accused, after the homicide of the victim, not only boasted of having killed him, but also mocked the way in which he executed it (…) four days after the homicide of the victim [Nombre 180], through the communication identified with sequence number (0309432), he maintains a dialogue with a person who is deprived of liberty in a penitentiary center, and (…) [Nombre 010] was indicating to the other subject that the victim had been left “riquísimo, exquisito quedó” (“really rich, exquisite he was left”), in clear reference to the number of shots he fired at him, and this because immediately after in that dialogue he told the subject that he had fired 12 shots and 5 in the face, and subsequently they mocked the manner of death by stating that “un hueco más y era un colador” (“one more hole and he would have been a colander”) and that they called him “[Nombre 357]…”. To conclude, the ruling sizes up the reproach that the defendant deserves, asserting that: “…for [Nombre 010] ending the victim's death was an act of jubilation and joy, which he externalized to his fellow men (…) he is deserving of the maximum reproach, since the prior motivation to kill the victim implies the development of a structured mental activity of a person who only thought about killing without contemplation and contempt for the life of a human being (…) an exploitation of circumstances that was externalized by [Nombre 010] when he stated that the victim “nunca se ponía y ando ahí con [Nombre 083]” (“he never stood up and I hang around there with [Nombre 083]”), in reference to the fact that he kept lying in wait for his victim and saw the opportunity and they killed the victim, which in a certain way denotes prior planning to ensure the execution of the homicide, and they violently entered the safe zone of the victim in a state of defensive vulnerability…” (cfr. judgment, seventh considering). As can be seen, the trial court made a true personalization of the reproach that justifies the maximum penalty chosen for [Nombre 010], which from my point of view was a decision without contradictions and with strict adherence to the parameters established by numeral 71 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal), which is why my vote is to declare the second ground of the appeal of the private defense counsel of the accused [Nombre 010] without merit.\n\n**XXI. Third ground of the appeal filed by the private defense counsel Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, in favor of the defendant [Nombre 010].** The defense did not title this claim as a separate ground; however, it is separated for greater clarity and precision of the topics. Regarding the attribution of criminal responsibility for drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas), it claims «insufficient evidentiary basis (fundamentación probatoria)». It considers that the mere mention of a fact without associating it with a specific piece of evidence that would allow the participation of the defendant to be accredited is insufficient. It asserts that the trial court merely made a doctrinal exposition on the crime of drug trafficking, but did not describe «the behavioral materialization(s)» incurred by [Nombre 010], because it was based solely on the content of the telephone interceptions, without any other type of «perceptible» evidence such as a drug seizure or the moment the negotiations occurred. It refers that no seizure report, expert examination, or verifiable surveillance by photographs was brought into the proceeding. Regarding the grievance, it details that its client was convicted without suitable evidentiary support, which harms his freedom of movement. It requests that the ruling be revoked and an acquittal be issued. In a subsidiary manner, that the challenged judgment be annulled and a remand for a new trial be ordered.\n\n**By majority, the ground is declared without merit.** Regarding the criminal responsibility of [Nombre 010] for the crime of drug trafficking, after the comprehensive examination of the summary, the majority of this Chamber considers that the intellectual basis presented by the *a quo* allows only some of the attributed conduct to be considered proven, and not the entirety of the accusations in the charging document. To explain the reasons that lead this Chamber to such a determination, the first thing that must be highlighted are the proven facts of the judgment involving [Nombre 010]: «*1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046] (deceased), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for storage, distribution and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: • The storage and dosing of the drug stashes acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of the stashes to the various points of sale. • The commercialization of drug stashes belonging to the criminal group to other narco bands based in the national territory.*»\n\n*«• The commercialization of drug stashes belonging to the narco-structure to third party drug addicts, through the properties that the organization held for this purpose in the manner of \"Bunkers\", as well as on the public thoroughfares of the zones under the organization's control. • The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking the use of various means for this purpose. 3.- This drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal manner, such that each of its members carried out specific functions, all in a single direction, the commercialization of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following:* […] *[Nombre 010]: Member of the criminal organization and trusted by the leader of the criminal group [Nombre 001], his functions within the group were oriented according to the instructions issued by the hierarchy and were aimed at the security of the leader of the criminal group, the sale of narcotics to third parties.*\n\n4.9 As part of the distribution of roles among the members of the criminal group, the group’s hierarchy allowed members of the criminal organization to carry out various functions ranging from the *surveillance and control of certain perimeters of the León XIII housing complex*, to the sale of narcotics, as in the case of the accused [Name 010], who maintained these roles within the criminal group, with the authorization of the accused [Name 001]. 4.10 On November 27, 2018, as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, he coordinated the sale of a shipment of narcotics with an unidentified person, with the accused issuing instructions through the communication channel he used to coordinate the delivery of the drugs in exchange for an undetermined amount of money. 4.11 As part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 22, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with an unidentified person the sale of a quantity close to one pound of Marijuana, for a sum near ₡130,000.00 (one hundred thirty thousand colones). 4.12 As part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 5, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with an unidentified person the sale of at least one kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride for an amount near ₡5,100,000.00 (five million one hundred thousand colones). [...] 6.12 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 010], the following result was obtained, and these items correspond to objects acquired with money obtained from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand Leica-style cell phone, black, with two IMEI numbers, 869103042154338 and 8691103042162539, and a SIM card number 8950604402809759547, and a Samsung brand cell phone, gray, with two IMEI numbers, 357474096804865 and 35747509804862, and with a SIM card number 8950604101002903973F. • A total amount of cash in the sum of ₡1,611,000.00 colones (one million six hundred eleven thousand colones), money that was generated from the trafficking and commercialization of narcotics carried out by the accused [Name 010]. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black, IMEI 35694910/094681/1 and 356950/10/094681. • A Samsung brand cell phone, white, IMEI 357098101662214, and a Samsung brand tablet, black, with the photograph of [Name 010]. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gold, IMEI 359878/06/905261R, in poor condition. • A Huawei brand cell phone, blue, SIM card number 950642020149289. • A Swann brand recorder, black, with its respective cables\" [sic] (cf. pp. 276 to 320 of the judgment). As is evident from the foregoing account of facts, the defendant [Name 010] was charged with two specific functions within the criminal organization: (i) security duties in two modalities: for the leader of the organization [Name 001] and perimeter surveillance in the León XIII housing complex (facts 1, 2, 3, and 4.9); (ii) sale of narcotics to third parties (facts 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12). Although both functions were deemed proven in the judgment, the majority of this Chamber considers that only the first of them is adequately supported. Regarding the second, the evidence assessed by the a quo is insufficient to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt—a point that will be elaborated upon further below. An analysis of the judgment reveals that several sections allude to the actions carried out by [Name 010]; however, under the title \"Facts against [Name 010] regarding drug trafficking and with the authorization of [Name 001]\" (cf. p. 456), a particular analysis of his criminal responsibility was performed. This describes how the accused appeared in the investigation from the initial stages, which is reconstructed in the judgment based on report IP-297-EN-18 dated October 19, 2018 (cf. pp. 1 to 87 of the investigation file) and the trial testimony of the judicial investigators in charge of the inquiries. These elements constitute lawful evidence, incorporated into the process in a timely manner and afforded full credibility, without any circumstances being verified that would warrant reaching a different conclusion. Regarding the security duties carried out by [Name 010], the judgment reconstructs several events: two surveillance operations conducted at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center on April 3, 2018, and November 2, 2018, in which the defendant's accompaniment of [Name 001] was documented when the latter appeared at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center to visit his romantic partner. Concerning these, the judgment states: \"As a result of the surveillance conducted on April 3, 2018, at the El Buen Pastor correctional facility, the identification of [Name 010] was obtained, as he was located driving the vehicle with license plate [Value 070], precisely a Toyota Prado, from which [Name 001] had disembarked minutes earlier to then enter the correctional facility for his conjugal visit; [Name 010] was intercepted by Police Intelligence officers after prior coordination with judicial investigators, who seized a firearm from him, a Glock brand pistol, Model 17gen4, 9mm caliber.\"\n\n9x19 Series Bcux778, irregularly stamped, it was also recorded that [Name 001] left the CAI, and upon observing the situation in which the Toyota Prado [Value 070] had been stopped, he headed north on foot to later board a taxi with license plate [Value 107]; they followed him and the operation led them to the address [Name 056], precisely 75 meters west of the Clínica de Santo Domingo de Heredia, a residence which the subject of interest entered. (cf. pages 3-5 report IP-297-EN18) […] The results that the intercepted calls were yielding, as well as other police operations, were recorded in report IP-320-EN-2018 dated November 8, 2018. It was indicated that the aliases of the intercepted individuals, such as “[Name 124]”, “[Name 109]”, as well as [Name 010], came to light from the calls. While the interception of communications was active, the judicial investigators continued with the field work; surveillance was resumed at the Centro Penal el Buen Pastor on the occasion of conjugal visits that [Name 001] regularly made to his romantic partner and prisoner [Name 081]. The report records the results of the surveillance carried out on November 2, 2018, at the El Buen Pastor prison, where movements were again triggered that were related to the protection of [Name 001], who in fact was observed when he entered the conjugal visit. A Toyota-brand vehicle, Corolla style, light gray, with license plate [Value 108], was identified by the police; another Toyota, Echo model, gold color, license plate [Value 045] with tinted windows, luxury rims, also on the sidewalk located on the east side of the Buen Pastor, [Name 161], ID [Value 109], and in the vicinity, [Name 010], ID [Value 004], given that both the vehicles and the people sighted were already previously known to the judicial investigators as part of the criminal group led by Mr. [Name 001] (folios 5 to 9 report IP-320-EN-2018) (cf. fs. 457 to 459 of the judgment). The trial court placed special emphasis on the statement of judicial investigator [Name 092], who related, in the relevant part: “The criminal judge informed us of how [Name 083] and [Name 083] orchestrated with other subjects the transfers of [Name 001]. According to the judge's interceptions, these transfers were quite clear due to the operational logistics not only in the León 13 sector but also in the vicinity of the Vilma Curling […] In this specific case, it was a surveillance operation carried out at the Vilma Curling in November 2018, where we observed the security detail that these investigated individuals had for [Name 001]. At the time of departure, we were able to spot [Name 083] in the area, but also that the person who guarded [Name 001] from the pontoon of the Vilma Curling until he entered vehicle [Value 108], I believe it was a Corolla, the person who guarded him was [Name 010]. This is important because according to the judge's interceptions, [Name 083] calls a subject to alert him of possible police actions, and upon us seeing that the one who was with [Name 001] was [Name 010], we were able to obtain [Name 010]'s phone number. We began to perceive, as this guy was saying—[Name 010] says this guy said to call 911 and say that those guys were armed. To us, that was for the purpose of ruling out that the vehicle they had detected belonged to any police force” (cf. f. 353 of the judgment). The communication referred to by the judicial investigator was also considered by the a quo and corresponds to sequence 0310019, at 10:47:56 hours on November 2, 2018.\n\nIn addition to the foregoing, the judgment explains that, based on the communications identified with sequence numbers 0254293, of November 24, 2018; 0254017, of December 19, 2018; 0017911, at 12:09 p.m. on November 24, 2018; 0017940, at 12:28 p.m. on November 24, 2018; 0313622, at 6:27 p.m. on November 28, 2018; 0008581, at 10:43 p.m. on December 12, 2018; 0254017, at 9:06 p.m. on December 19, 2018; 0317594, at 3:53 p.m. on December 31, 2018, it is possible to establish \"the active functioning of a criminal organization, the distinct functions and tasks assigned to each of the members of the narco organization that up to that point had been identified by the police are clearly understood, where some had the function of collaborating with the entry and transfer of food to the prison where [Name 081], the romantic partner of [Name 001], was incarcerated, an aspect that again reveals the hierarchical level of [Name 001], such interpretation arises from listening to communications containing orders retransmitted from [Name 001] to [Name 010] and [Name 161] in relation to gathering the various collaborators ([Name 210], [Name 124], [Name 109], [Name 123]) to carry out the different transfers or custody of shipments that were later confirmed to be drugs, money, and weapons\" (cf. pp. 467 to 468 of the judgment). However, the majority of this Chamber disagrees that these give rise, without a doubt, to the effective participation of [Name 010] in any drug transfer, and for such purposes it is necessary to transcribe those in which he interacts, which correspond to the following: \"From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0313622. The intercepted phone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 110]. This call was made at 6:27 p.m. on November 28, 2018.\n\nSubject called [Name 010] and said – tell me, [Name 010] said – there he is, what's up asshole?, what do I tell him?, [Name 001] said off-phone – tell the corn guy to come to the big high school on a motorcycle, [Name 010] told a second subject – tell the corn guy to come to the big high school on a motorcycle, second subject said – ok, [Name 010] said – and tell him to wait outside right now, subject told a fourth subject – to come to the big high school on a motorcycle right now and wait outside, second subject told [Name 010] - on a motorcycle huh?, [Name 010] said – yes, second subject said to [Name 010] – ok yes he's on his way out; they say goodbye. Communication ends\" and \"From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0317594. The intercepted phone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 094]. This call was made at 3:53 p.m. on December 31, 2018. [Name 010] received a call from a subject, [Name 010] said – hello, subject said – all clear I'm on my way over here by\n\nAyA, [Name 010] said – ok keep coming, subject said – here I am going by AyA, [Name 010] said – ok keep coming because here I come, subject said - where are you going?, [Name 010] said – by the bridge all clear, subject said – by the bridge keep going, keep going, I am here around the bend, [Name 010] said – go go go, all good, all good, the whole bridge looks clear, subject said – ok, [Name 010] said - everything clear here, everything clear, subject said – you keep going, [Name 010] said – here I come all clear, subject said – keep going I'm coming down here now, [Name 010] said – what I need is for them to do it a little faster because those little boxes are around, you say that [Name 069] told you, subject said – yes yes, go ahead, I'm just arriving at the bridge, the bridge I go, [Name 010] said – all good, all good here at the Ebais, subject said – all good at the Ebais, ok here I go bridge going up now, [Name 010] said - all good all good here, subject said – here I come up, [Name 010] said – all good all good here, subject said – here I come here I come, [Name 010] said – all good, subject said - here I come up now, [Name 010] said - all good all good all good here, subject said – is everything good in [Name 166]?, [Name 010] said – yes, all good, subject said – how does Gara look, [Name 010] said – Gara I circled it twice and everything looks good, subject said – ok you go down, do the dam there like normal, [Name 010] said – ok, which way are you coming?, Subject said – here by the Ebais, subject said – let's go let's go, [Name 010] said – keep coming, what I need is for you to do it, subject said – go ahead you son of a bitch here it comes, here I go (mentions something but it's unintelligible), [Name 010] said – keep coming because I've got the bus here, so he can pass quickly, subject said – ok here I am here I am, [Name 010] said – keep coming keep coming, subject said – here I go, don't hang up I'm going to call the dwarf real quick, [Name 010] said – ok, keep coming keep coming, subject said – let him pass, let him pass, I'll let you know so you can do the dam, let him pass, hold on let me call [Name 264] don't hang up, [Name 010] said – go ahead go ahead, everything's fine here, subject said - all clear?, where are they heading because I'm here in [Name 166], [Name 010] said – go ahead, all good, I saw them I saw them, subject said – ah ok, go down, he's going down, I'm coming here by the [Name 061], go down now, [Name 010] said – get going get going, subject said – all clear?, [Name 010] said – all good, all good, go ahead, subject said – do the dam, do the dam, do the dam [Name 195], dude I'll call you, do the dam, do the dam, do the dam, I'm coming here by tica linda, tica linda do the dam, do the dam. Conversation ends\" [sic] (cf. pp. 466 to 467 of the judgment). Observe that in the first of the communications [Name 010] gives instructions to a third party to move to a certain place on the order of [Name 001]. In the second, it is noted that [Name 010] provides information to a third party about the status of a route along which both were traveling, so that he could drive safely. It is clear then for the majority of this Chamber that with these communications it is not possible to establish, objectively and without any margin of doubt, that on those occasions some drug transaction or transport was being carried out, because there is no other evidentiary element that corroborates that information. Despite what has been stated, they are important because they reaffirm the closeness and subordination of [Name 010] in relation to [Name 001], but even more importantly, they evidence the security work that [Name 010] provided within the organization and which was charged in the accusation by the Public Prosecutor's Office. The second transcribed communication is totally compatible with that function, because the defendant provides on-road information about some risk situation for the person traveling behind him. This dynamic is consistent with an event documented through several telephone communications that had occurred a few days earlier, properly on December 3, 2018, when [Name 001] was approached by administrative police officers, who escorted him in his vehicle to a police station in the locality of Tibás, which was reconstructed from the information generated by the communications with sequence numbers 0255028; at 8:46 p.m.; 0318379, at 8:53 p.m.; 0318381, at 8:56 p.m.; 0323442, at 9:00 p.m.: 0323443, at 9:04 p.m.; 0027474, at 9:10 p.m.; 0323450, at 9:22 p.m. and 0323451, at 9:26 p.m.\n\nFrom these records, as an important piece of information, it stands out that it was [Name 001] himself—who was under a telephone interception—who told a third party—whom he asked for legal advice, although he was not a lawyer—that they were transferring him to a police station, but that he was not carrying anything that could compromise him; in addition to the fact that [Name 010] told another member of the organization that when this situation occurred, he was riding a motorcycle and was also approached by police officers who allowed him to leave. Furthermore, it is evident that the apprehension of the alias “[Name 084]” was due to the fact that the security system implemented by the organization had failed and a timely warning was not given about the police action on the route he was traveling. With this information, it is clarified that [Name 001] was moving about free of objects that could compromise him, so it is clear that the logistics related to security matters were directed towards his person and not to the custody of drugs. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the *a quo* is correct in deeming that the first of the functions attributed to the defendant [Name 010], specifically regarding the security he provided to the leader of the criminal organization, was fully accredited. It is important to highlight that the appealing party **did not challenge** this point of the sentence, but rather their disagreement is centered on the other activity attributed to him, specifically the sale of drugs, since according to the defense's thesis, the lack of a seizure of any illicit substance associated with said individual prevented it from being accredited. Regarding that second task, the majority of this Chamber considers that the evidence considered by the trial court does not allow it to be verified, insofar as, for those purposes, only the content of several telephone communications was available, which were not supported by any other evidentiary element that would allow clarifying that, in effect, a drug transaction was being carried out. The reasoning made by the *a quo* consisted of the following: \"*It was alleged that on November 27, 2018, as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, he coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of a stash of narcotics, with the defendant giving instructions through the communication channel he used to coordinate the delivery of the drugs in exchange for an undetermined amount of money, **such accusation is considered proven based on the following calls**: from [Value 098].* \n\n*Calls identified with sequences 0313034 and 0313036, the intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 111], these calls were made at 6:42 p.m. and 6:46 p.m. respectively on November 27, 2018, from the calls the following stands out: first call “[Name 010] made a call to a female and said – Hello? Female: Where are you? [Name 010]: I'm arriving here at the school now. Female: Which side of the school? [Name 010]: What do you mean which side? Female: Just come down. [Name 010]: well, I'll be here at the school man, I'm arriving. Female: two hundred meters north of the school, come down there where there's a gravel road. [Name 010]: on the corner by the park? Female: No way. [Name 010]: What do you mean no way? Female: It's not further that way. [Name 010]: at the school. Extra telephone subject: tell her to get smart, we're not carrying candy. [Name 010]: don't you see you're stupid, I've got that stuff, man. Female: just come down here, are you with [Name 083]? [Name 010]: no, [Name 083] was busy. Female: come to the high school then. [Name 010]: ok, I'm going.\" Second call: “[Name 010]: here I am right at the high school. Female: man, just come down there, it's more of a breserío there, head down towards the north going down. [Name 010]: What do you mean towards the park? Female: no, downwards, are you right at the high school? [Name 010]: yes, right here at the very entrance. Female: instead of taking that street you came from the park, no, not even going towards the sabana the other one. [Name 010]: which one man? Female: a little way down, you see the veterinary clinic that's there, something like a veterinary clinic on the corner. [Name 010]: man, it's more like, don't be stupid, don't be stupid, Where are you? Female: man, down from the high school, north heading north, look down again man, don't you see a house on the corner that's like two stories a little way down, like where this thing is, how do I explain it. [Name 010]: why don't you come here to me instead? Female: because I have the money here and besides, that's a breserío there because a guy fell there recently ([Name 010] can't figure out the cardinal points) Female: do you see the small grocery store that's by the high school? [Name 010]: the what? Female: there's a small grocery store at the high school. [Name 010]: man, why don't you come to the very entrance and there we can agree where I give it to you. Female: mmmman but I'm home here at the very entrance. [Name 010]: I didn't know. Female: [Name 010], you're messing with me. [Name 010]: man don't be silly man, I'm right here man. Female: Where ratón? [Name 010]: right here at the very entrance on the other sidewalk man. Female: on which sidewalk, you jerk, if I'm coming up? [Name 010]: man, I'm right here man. Female: man, you made me come all the way up here. [Name 010]: man, where it says Escuela Nocturna. Female: I don't see anyone. [Name 010]: goddamn it. Female: Liceo de San José…. Extra telephone subject: there's a lot of cops, tell her no, to come to the Colegio Nocturno. Female: there are no cops here, it was going up the hill you'd take a right and come down like that to the very end. [Name 010]: What? Female: when you went up that steep hill when you come from over there. Extra telephone subject: don't be stupid deay let's go. [Name 010]: I'm going. Female; put him on.\" Regarding December 5, it is alleged that as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 5, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of at least one kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride for an amount close to ₡ 5,100,000.00 (five million one hundred thousand colones), to prove the accusation, the following call was available: “From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0300193. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service 61958199. This call was made at 11:17 a.m. on December 5, 2018. Female called [Name 010] and said – [Name 211] what's the price of the things? White ones, [Name 010] said – I don't know if there will be any, subject said – no but the price more or less, [Name 010] said – around five hundred, female said – ok, that's fine; they say goodbye. Communication ends.” Finally, it is alleged that as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 22, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of an amount close to one pound of Marijuana, for a sum close to ₡130,000.00 (one hundred thirty thousand colones), as evidentiary support for this, the following call is available: “From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0310069. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 111]. This call was made at 7:20 p.m. on December 22, 2018. [Name 010] made a call to a female. [Name 010] said - What? How did it go?, female said – How lazy of you, [Name 010] said - What's the latest?, female said – Deay just take it easy, deay I was talking the other time with that little animal of your boss, [Name 010] said – [Name 083]?, female said Yes -[Name 010] said – Your boss, sure you, female said – Ah well, [Name 010] said – That was before, Female said – Ah I don't know, [Name 010] said – And what?, female said – Man, you know I need a green L, this guy got me one but like I had to go run some errands in Chepe, the thing slipped my mind but I have the money, [Name 010] said – Let me check to see what's up, but that stuff, don't be stupid, there's none here you know, female said – Yes there is, [Name 212] gave me the tip but that he'd leave it for me at one hundred forty and that guy [Name 083] left me one at one hundred thirty that a buddy had and I don't know what and just now I asked him and he told me he already sold it, [Name 010] said – It's just that man here, well, well then I'll legally talk to a buddy, female said - And you know what the thing was, my cousin gave me that guy's number [Name 299], but you know I don't get along with [Name 299], that you were closer to that guy, he's a real son of a bitch, [Name 010] said – yeah yeah you know it, female said – So check for me, [Name 010] said - So what's the final word? Where are you living?*\"\n\n\"Right there?, the female said- No, in Heredia, [Name 010] said – aha, the female said - well I haven't lived there for a long time, [Name 010] said - Do you live alone?, the female said – No, What about you? What are you moving? You're not moving anything?, [Name 010] said – The damn thing, the female said – Ah idiot, I already saw the brat idiot, [Name 010] said – names there on the down low legally it's like, like all this girl, there in the scrape you know, evolving you know, the female said – [Name 265]'s brother is always into something, that chubby guy who deals hard, Joder said - Who? Whose little brother?, the female said– Balle's, [Name 010] said – Yeah, but he only sells you know crack, the female said – Yeah that's the one I need, [Name 010] said – Aha, Female said – Does he still live there?, to see if I drop by tomorrow, [Name 010] said – Yeah just call me and I'll get him for you, the female said – Is that your number? I'll come by tomorrow then, Joder said – Just let me know man you know that uuu uuu and that's it, female said – So tomorrow I'll come by there to see what's up. From minute 00:02:41 to minute 00:03:27. female said – Careful your boss doesn't hit you with a blow, [Name 010] said –What boss?, female said – [Name 083], [Name 010] said – Man don't be stupid, rather [Name 083] is my pupil, female said – Oh sure, [Name 010] said – Ah well let's leave it at that then, female said; They speak of matters without interest for the investigation, they say goodbye. Communication ends\". Regarding the investigation proceedings related to [Name 010], there was also the statement of investigator [Name 092], who declared in this regard: \"…upon seeing that the one going with [Name 001] was [Name 010], we were able to obtain [Name 010]'s phone right, we began to perceive how he said -this guy- [Name 010] says that this guy said to call 911 and say that those guys were armed, for us that was in order to rule out that the vehicle they had detected was from some police force, after this situation and thanks to the communications interception tool, it was possible to corroborate that the security devices we had documented were for the protection of [Name 001] and that it was also a fairly coordinated and organized group, where we were already detecting different functions, thus with the progress of the investigation and the wiretaps during the investigation period, hundreds of coordinations were captured regarding the transport, custody and protection of [Name 001], custodies that at some point were thwarted by the police as for example in the month of December of the year 2018..[…]..by the end of the year 2018, these communications by Mr. [Name 010] were captured regarding not only the planning but the commission of the act against a person on November 17, in these communications the dangerousness of the actions of [Name 010] and [Name 225] was evidenced, thus by the year 2019 we continued with operational tasks resulting from the interceptions carried out by the criminal judge and specifically regarding the topic of drug trafficking, for the months of January and February 2019 the communications of the investigated individuals were captured, they maintained the connotation of supplying the drug stash to other organizations…\". Making an analysis of the circumstances prior to the dates in question, in addition to the last mentioned calls, [Name 010] is considered first as an active member of the group led by Mr. [Name 001], in surveillance functions, security for transfers, interacting directly with [Name 001] since clearly in different calls where [Name 010] is the one conversing with another group member, Mr. [Name 001] was heard off-phone giving orders for [Name 010] to re-transmit them, it was thus that he came to have the degree of trust of the leader of the group, to the point of carrying out direct drug commercialization tasks as analyzed\" [sic] (cfr. pp. 482 to 487 of the judgment). From the previous passage it is confirmed what was pointed out lines above, in the sense that the only probationary input assessed to accredit the sale of drugs to third parties by [Name 010], were telephone communications intercepted by court order which, in his case, unlike what occurred with other defendants, is insufficient, because there was no form of external corroboration of its content. Faced with this scenario, in the judgment of the majority of this Chamber, it is not possible to sustain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that those telephone contacts resulted in true drug transactions, because they constitute indications that must be reinforced by other means to support their veracity, which did not happen. It is important to highlight that the commercialization of drugs by the organization was indeed fully accredited with the evidence incorporated into the adversarial proceedings, as analyzed in considerando X, dedicated to examining the legal situation of [Name 029], to which it refers for reading. In this, it was corroborated that there was an active supply of drugs, mainly cocaine, to other organizations so that they, in turn, would provide them to third parties. The a quo referred to this activity in the judgment when assessing the situation of [Name 010], with which it intended to extend these drug transfers to said defendant, to give meaning to the previously cited communications and derive that they were drug transactions. Clearly, this information is of utmost relevance, because it proves the main activity carried out by the criminal organization of which [Name 010] was a part and in which he assumed specific tasks, but, analyzing the body of evidence as a whole, on the part of the majority of this Tribunal, it cannot be extrapolated in the manner intended by the a quo, to give meaning to the communications in which said defendant interacts with third parties and determine, beyond all doubt, that it corresponded to drug transactions. This is so since the indicated conversations, even based on the circumstantial evidence structure available, do not allow reasonable hypotheses to be excluded, such as the existence of a narcotics negotiation that was never finalized by [Name 010], which would not be punishable. This authority is clear that in our criminal procedural system the principle of freedom of evidence operates, according to which facts can be proven by any element of evidence obtained lawfully, so it is not possible to require controlled purchases, seizures from third parties or some type of specific evidence to establish the retail drug sale attributed to [Name 010]. However, criminal prosecution corresponds to the Public Ministry and with it the burden of proof, which obliges it to provide lawful and sufficient elements that allow the reconstruction, in the plenary stage, of the fact intended to be proven, a task that was partially fulfilled with respect to this second function attributed to the defendant. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded then that the prosecutorial accusation, with respect to the conduct attributed to [Name 010], was reliably accredited only with respect to the security work for [Name 001], being the leader of the organization —not so the sale of drugs to third parties in the majority opinion—, which, for the reasons that will be explained below, is sufficient to sustain the criminal responsibility of the defendant at the level of co-perpetration (coautoría) in the activity of aggravated drug trafficking, provided for in numerals 58 in relation to 77 of Law No. 8204. In the Costa Rican legal system, numeral 45 defines co-perpetration (coautoría) as follows: \"The perpetrator of the punishable act typified as such is the one who carries it out by himself or using another or others, and co-perpetrators (coautores) are those who carry it out jointly with the perpetrator\". From the reading of the norm it is inferred that co-perpetration (coautoría) consists of a form of plural criminal participation. The object of co-perpetration (coautoría) is a collective act, carried out by several active subjects, which is integrated with the individual causal contribution. In this line, it is not required that each co-perpetrator (coautor) executes by himself the entirety of the typical action, but rather it is sufficient that, based on a common resolution and a functional distribution of work, he makes an essential contribution to the achievement of the crime. In the case of criminal acts carried out by criminal organizations, it is clear that their complexity prevents them from being executed alone, which is why it is necessary that they operate through a work distribution system. Thus, the head of the gang can be considered a co-perpetrator (coautor), as he participates in a common plan and is in charge of coordinating, organizing, providing resources, among others, therefore he has an essential function; but the member of the organization who makes a contribution, even if specialized and limited, but which contributes to the success of the illicit purpose, will also have that status. In this regard, doctrine states: \"Co-perpetrators (Coautores) do not commit different punishable acts, but rather they intervene in a common act. Their contributions to the act must be legally assessed as an action that is subsumed, as a whole, under the respective type […] its objective type is realized when the totality of the contributions to the act has caused the typical result in an objectively imputable manner. The question of whether the individual contribution to the act was a necessary condition of the result is irrelevant. Co-perpetrators (Coautores) are responsible for a result produced in common, even if the contribution to the act of each individual can be mentally suppressed without the result disappearing\" (Frister, Helmut. Derecho penal. Parte general. 1st ed., Buenos Aires, Hammurabi, 2011, p. 539). Thus, in the case of a criminal structure not all the co-perpetrators (coautores) carry out the typical verb directly. In crimes committed by criminal organizations, the center of gravity in the analysis of co-perpetration (coautoría), is no longer unequivocally in the essentiality of the contribution, but rather the issue of the division of tasks (some of which are a necessary step for others to be executed) comes into play as a consubstantial aspect of the degree of complexity of the organization. In narcotics trafficking, not everyone will commercialize or transport the drug, for example, but they can perform other indispensable contributions within the common plan, so that the contribution must be measured based on its necessity for the achievement of the collective act seen as a whole. Whoever provides security to the leader of a criminal organization prevents him from being neutralized, by the authorities or by rival groups, since this could cause the continuity of the criminal activity to be interrupted or truncated. The physical security of the leader enables him to continue issuing orders, organizing work, among others and with that, the entire structure continues to function successfully. So this role is not accessory, but structurally indispensable and, consequently, is integrated within the distribution of tasks that makes it possible to execute the main crime. In the case of the criminal organization led by [Name 001], it could be established that this was a subject of interest to the authorities, as could be verified with the police intervention carried out on December 3, 2018 —to which reference has been made in different sections of this pronouncement—, but also to those who operate outside the law and which is corroborated by the attack against his life he suffered on December 8, 2019, at the Tienda Monge business located near the Rotonda de Las Garantías Sociales. Said event highlighted how important it was within the criminal group to allocate resources to ensure the freedom of movement and personal integrity of its leader, through the custody that was exercised by other members of the gang, among them [Name 010], even in moments of recreation or leisure. Corollary of the foregoing, the function performed by [Name 010] places him as a co-perpetrator (coautor) of the main activity of the criminal organization led by [Name 001], that is, aggravated drug trafficking.\n\nBased on the foregoing, the appeal ground filed by the technical defense of said defendant is declared **without merit**. By majority, *sua sponte* (de oficio), the sentence imposed for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled, because even though the legal classification did not undergo any variation, the fact is that the delimitation of the defendant's criminal participation, established in this pronouncement, could have some impact on their criminal reproach, which is why it is appropriate that this point be re-substantiated. Judge Escalante Quirós issues a dissenting vote and, in declaring the aforementioned appeal ground without merit, does so without excluding any proven fact from the *a quo*.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With accentuated respect, I depart from the vote of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, only insofar as it was decided, *sua sponte*, to reduce the criminal liability of [Name 010], by exonerating them from a part of the facts proven in the judgment (events numbered as 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 of the ruling), annul the sentence imposed on them, and order a remand. My vote concurs with the majority, only, to declare without merit the third ground of the appeal by the private defense of [Name 010] and, for the following reasons, I depart from the sua sponte decision to reduce the criminal liability of the accused, as well as the two cited consequences that derive from it. As will be seen, I hold the thesis that the conviction of [Name 010] must remain intact. Starting from folio 456 of the judgment brought on appeal, the court substantiated the facts accredited against [Name 010], making it clear that they were identified on April 3, 2018, by virtue of surveillance of the movements of the organization's leader, [Name 001]. In this regard, report number IP-297-EN-18 is cited. On that occasion, [Name 010] drove the vehicle in which [Name 001] went to a penitentiary center in Desamparados to visit their romantic partner, an opportunity in which [Name 010] was approached by the police, identified, and a firearm they were carrying irregularly was seized. In the same vein, the court weighed that on November 2, 2018, [Name 010] was also observed in the vicinity of the same penitentiary center, just when [Name 001] made another visit there (report IP-320-EN-2018). Following that, the court relied on the statement of investigator [Name 092], who testified about the way in which [Name 010] was linked to the drug trafficking organization led by [Name 001]. Highly relevant in the court's reasoning is the linking of [Name 010] from when their phone was intercepted, denoting closeness with the leader, and the direct relationship with the leader's movements, as well as with other co-perpetrators also located in the highest echelons of the criminal pyramid. Thus, the ruling analyzes that when [Name 010] emerged in the investigation, it had already been accredited that the network was dedicated to drug trafficking and the laundering of proceeds from it, citing as an example the drug sale made to the organization of [Name 099], through [Name 029]. The judgment also invokes the receipt and management of the money obtained from drug sales, carried out by [Name 029] and their partner [Name 026], all of which occurred during the time that, according to the evidence – wiretapping and surveillance –, [Name 010] was linked as an active member of the criminal network of [Name 001], especially at the end of 2018 when they were related as a co-perpetrator of drug trafficking, in surveillance tasks, perimeter control, and security for the leader of the narco gang. This review of what the court weighed is necessary, in my view, because it contextualizes the evaluation that was later made of the calls intercepted from [Name 010], it being relevant to highlight that [Name 010]'s liability not only derives, from my point of view, from the content of the judicially captured communications, but rather its content is concluded with certainty, by placing the accused [Name 010] in a timeframe in which other means of evidence position them acting fully within the criminal organization, very close to the leader and alongside other main collaborators, when the network was trading drugs with other gangs, as exemplified by the *a quo*. Then, as will be seen, the evidentiary context leads to the accreditation that [Name 010] indeed was referring to drugs in the calls valued in the ruling, as the indicia come together to affirm it with certainty. [Name 010] makes coded reference to what they are heard commercializing, which is usual in this type of crime; furthermore, they mention a price that was also proven to be the price this criminal organization had for the sale of kilograms of cocaine – the babies or babys –, hence this joins the rest of the evidence analyzed by the court, as an indicium to affirm with certainty that they were indeed referring to drugs, just as the judging body deduced. Therefore, under my considerations, the judgment did clearly and substantively establish the responsibility of [Name 010], based on the union of the case's evidence, so that, in light of the content of the calls from the days of November 27, December 5 and 22, all of 2018, it can be concluded that reference was made to illicit drugs as part of their active role in the criminal network. Note that by that time the gang had already traded drugs several times, that [Name 010] was linked very closely to the most trusted members of the leader, and they did so with surveillance and custodial duties directly connected to the criminal labors and to the boss [Name 001], from which it is clear that their coded language can only be interpreted as drug sales, as the judgment pertinently substantiated. In sum, from my point of view, in declaring without merit the third ground of the appeal by the technical defense of [Name 010], none of the facts proven in the judgment should be excluded, maintaining intact the events demonstrated by the *a quo*, for which I clarify my vote in that sense, also departing from the majority's decision to annul the sentence imposed on them for drug trafficking.-\n\n**XXII. Second objection corresponding to the challenge filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva in favor of [Name 030].** He alleges “Violation of the principle of correlation between the notice of charges (intimación), accusation (acusación), and judgment.” The appellant points out the non-observance of articles 12, 13, 82 subsection a), 92, 326, and 365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). He highlights that the right to defense includes 4 basic guarantees: a) principle of notice of charges (principio de intimación); b) principle of imputation (principio de imputación); c) right to be heard; and d) right to defense proper. He explains that based on Articles 82 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Third Chamber (ruling No. 446-02 of May 17, 2002; No. 613 of July 31, 2003; and No. 83-2020, among others), has understood that the accusation and the conviction must coincide, and, furthermore, that the right to notice of charges and imputation is generated from the very moment of the investigative statement (indagatoria). He refers that [Name 030] was charged and accused only for facts related to the activity of money laundering, never for predicate activities, such that they endured and prepared to repel that illicit act. For this reason, he indicates that they could not be convicted of the crime of drug trafficking, since they had no opportunity to produce evidence or prepare a defense strategy in relation to said figure. After citing various excerpts of interest from the section of accused events (folios 6, 10, 24, and 25 of the documentary judgment), the appellant explains that they were not in a position to exercise an effective defense of their client, since, from the notice-of-charges phase, including the formulation of the charging instrument, the conduct for which [Name 030] was convicted was not included. After mentioning excerpts of the facts accused against their client, Dr. Badilla Villanueva states that, throughout the entire process, they were charged with \"being the member of the alleged criminal organization dedicated to laundering assets\" (cfr. f. 7230), which is ratified by indicating the tasks in which their spouse, who also appeared as a defendant and was ultimately acquitted, collaborated. He recalls that the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in ruling No. 152-2000, ordered that a conviction for facts not contained in the charging instrument constitutes a violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment. With reference to folio 278 of the appealed ruling and to proven fact No. 5.6 (f. 299 of the judgment), the technical defense points out that, regarding [Name 030], only two specific actions were individualized against them: 1) that they \"appeared as a member of the criminal organization for whom, among other functions under the direction and supervision of the leader [Name 001], they were responsible for ensuring, through the acquisition of assets of high economic value, the insertion into the national economy and the financial system of the economic gains derived from the narco-activity executed by the organization; to this end, they sought the recruitment of unrelated third parties, who joined the organization as front men in whose names the various licit controls registered the assets acquired by the organization, registered in the name of front men who collaborated with the purpose of hiding the illicit origin of the funds through which the assets that were for the enjoyment of the criminal group were acquired\" [sic] (cfr. f. 7234 of the main file); 2) \"5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of assets acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030], carried out the necessary procedures for the purchase and registry inscription of the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TXL, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this asset at the agency Purdy Motor S.A. for the sum of ₵ 44,272,000.00 [...] vehicle that was designated by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001]\" [sic] (cfr. f. 7234 of the main file). He points out that, despite the fact that no facts specific to their client's participation in the crime of drug trafficking were charged or proven, in Considerando IV of the judgment (folios\n\n322 and following of said document) [Name 030] was convicted of drug trafficking, based on circumstances that were neither notified nor contained in the accusatory instrument and, beyond that, are also not included in the proven facts. It highlights that the judgment established that on October 26, 2019, [Name 030] transported drugs, but to reach that conviction, they refer solely to the content of a telephone interception in which the former would have referred to the smell emanating from the material in custody, from which the a quo infers that, without a doubt, the material transported was drugs (cfr. f. 7236). In short, the appellant argues that at no time were the conducts on which the trial court convicted his client notified or charged: “that a-) he negotiated vehicle changes for the organization b-) he negotiated bringing bulletproof glass from Guatemala to install it in the vehicle used by [Name 001], c-) he held meetings at his home and d-) that on October 26, 2019, using his cell phone, he directed a drug transport that was successfully completed” (cfr. f. 7237). He adds that it cannot be pretended that the deficiencies of the accusation are covered by the generic phrase that [Name 030] “was part of the criminal organization,” because such a reference does not comply with the obligation to charge the facts in a clear, precise, and detailed manner. Dr. Badilla Villanueva cites in support of his position, ruling no. 451-2023 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which unified criteria on the matter of correlation between accusation and judgment. He states, as a grievance, that since there is no detailed, precise, and concrete description of the facts on which [Name 030] was convicted of the crime of drug trafficking, he never had the opportunity to defend himself against these. He therefore requests that the judgment be revoked and that he be acquitted of said offense. The claim is granted. To respond to the complaint, it is necessary to outline the accused facts that link [Name 030], which —it is worth noting— coincide with those that were ultimately considered proven: “1. In the period between the months of April 2018 to October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to mid-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2. The operating model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: The storage and dosing of the drug caches acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of caches to the various points of sale. The sale of drug caches owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory. The sale of the drug caches owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug dependents, through the properties that the organization held for such purposes, “Bunker” type, as well as on public roads in the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for that purpose the use of various means to that end. 3. This drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramid form, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction, the sale of drugs and the safeguarding of the group over the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: […] [Name 030]: he figured as a member of the criminal organization to whom, among other functions, corresponded under the direction and supervision of the leader [Name 001], the procuring, through the acquisition of high economic value assets, of inserting into the national economy and the financial system the economic profits derived from the narco-activity executed by the organization; for that purpose he sought the recruitment of third-party outsiders, who joined the organization as fronts (testaferros) in whose name the assets acquired by the organization were registered in the various licit controls, registering them in the name of fronts who collaborated with the purpose of hiding the illicit origin of the funds through which the assets that were for the enjoyment of the criminal group were acquired […] 5.\n\nDuring the investigation period spanning from April 2018 to October 2020, the Criminal Organization formed by the investigated parties [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 161] (absent), [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046] (deceased), [Nombre 050] (absent), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, and transfer assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Nombre 001] […] 5.4 In the period from January 2018 to October 13, 2020, the accused [Nombre 001] designated the accused [Nombre 030] alias “[Nombre 241]” to carry out the necessary actions for the acquisition of high-value economic assets, using money proceeds from the illicit drug trade, and [Nombre 030] was also delegated the recruitment of third parties to lend their names and identities to register vehicles and assets in their names and thus cover up the illicit origin, assets whose purpose was the use and enjoyment of the accused [Nombre 001] and other members of the criminal group […] 5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of assets acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Nombre 030] undertook the necessary steps for the purchase and registration of the vehicle make Toyota, model Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Valor 031], in the name of the accused ([Nombre 019]), who acquired this asset at the Purdy Motor S.A agency for the sum of ₡44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was assigned by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Nombre 001] […] 6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, search, inspection, and seizure proceedings were conducted at the various points controlled by the criminal organization, resulting in the arrest of the defendants [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], and also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts, as set forth below […] 6.9 Regarding the results of the search, inspection, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 033], the following results were obtained and correspond to objects acquired with money proceeds from drug trafficking:\n\n• A Huawei brand telephone, blue color, with IMEI #1: 869892042128470, IMEI #2: 869892042148486, with a Claro brand SIM card numbered 8950603019910340834F.\n• A Samsung brand telephone, blue color, with IMEI number 359770/10/853192/7, with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered\n9506010919112543185. A Samsung brand telephone, red color, with IMEI number\n359770/10/648523/3 with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112767917.\n• A Samsung brand telephone, black color, with IMEI #1: 359060/09/653228/9, IMEI #2: 359061/09/653228f7, with a SIM card numbered 8950604302809752916.\n• An iPhone brand cell phone, black color, with a broken screen, without a visible serial number or IMEI, with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112612634.\n• A total amount of cash in the sum of $517 (Five hundred seventeen dollars) and ₡705,000.00 (seven hundred five thousand colones), money that was generated from the activity of drug trafficking.\n• A Samsung brand Tablet, gray color, model BT-PS100, with IMEI number 354077/05122539819. A Samsung brand telephone, black color, containing a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506011113211672736 and a 4GB SD card, Kingston brand.\n• An iPhone brand telephone, black color, with IMEI number 012851001506544, without a SIM card.\n• A Samsung brand telephone, black color, with IMEI number 355878105/66783512, with a Movistar brand SIM card numbered 8950604202704339761. A Nokia brand telephone, black color, model N8-00.\n• A USB storage device, ADATA brand, 16GB.\n• A USB storage device, Kingston brand DTSE-9, 16GB.\n• A USB storage device, Sandisk brand, 8GB. A USB storage device, Kingston brand Datatraveler, 2GB.\n• A 8GB microSD card. Two Adata brand microSD cards, 8GB each.\n• A Kingston brand microSD card, 2GB.\n• A Kingston brand microSD card, 16GB.\n• A Samsung brand microSD card, 16GB.\n• A Radioshack brand microSD card, 128GB.\n• An Adata Superior SH02 brand portable hard drive, black and white color.\n• A GPS detector, model k18, black color, with its respective charger and antenna.\n• An iPhone brand cell phone, gray color, with IMEI number 359234060064211, with a Movistar brand SIM card numbered 8950644027401423570.\n• A Samsung brand flat screen, black color, with serial number 086M3CBMA08590E, with its respective wall mount.\n• A Samsung brand curved television screen, black color, with serial number 07CU3CCDK809440D, with its respective wall mount.\n• Two hundred four 9.9 millimeter caliber rounds. Thirty-one .25 caliber rounds. Two hundred 5.56 millimeter caliber rounds. Thirty-three .40 caliber rounds. One hundred 7.62x39 millimeter caliber rounds. Four 7.7x26 millimeter caliber rounds.\n• A vehicle make Toyota, model Land Cruiser Prado TX-L, all-terrain, year 2020, white color, vehicle license plate [Valor 179], with VIN number JTEBH3FJ1L5105166, engine number 1KDB039378, with its respective documents (title deed, technical inspection report, and circulation permit).\n• A money receipt number 0355856, dated 04/29/2020, in the name of [Nombre 033], for an amount of fifty dollars, from the company Purdy Motor S.A. (cf. pages 276 to 315 of the judgment).\n\nBased on the foregoing statement of facts, the lower court (a quo) issued a conviction against [Nombre 030] for the crimes of aggravated drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Regarding the first of these offenses, which is the one challenged by the defense counsel and the defendant in the grounds currently under review, the trial court stated: \"For this court, the actions carried out by [Nombre 030] form part of the charge brought against all members of the criminal structure, which is: '…among other persons, they formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; zones in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for receiving money proceeds from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: • The storage and dosing of the drug shipments acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including supplying the shipments to the various points of sale. • The commercialization of drug shipments owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory…'\".\n\nIt must be kept in mind that it was demonstrated, through many surveillances, the presence of [Nombre 030] participating as a member of the criminal group; likewise, he performed key tasks as a trusted person, such as the maintenance of vehicles used by the criminal organization, the negotiation to change the models of some vehicles, the negotiation to bring armored glass from Guatemala to install in the vehicle used by [Nombre 001], the repeated meetings with the majority of the members of the criminal organization having as a meeting point the residence of Mr. [Nombre 030], meetings aimed at receiving the money proceeds from drug sales as was clearly reflected in calls between [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 050] and, as if that were not enough, clearly on October 26, 2019, [Nombre 030], using his cell phone which was intercepted, directed a drug transport that successfully ended with the delivery, since upon completing the route he told the driver of the vehicle carrying the drug the exact point where they were expected. All these conducts fall within the temporal scope of the indictment. By way of conclusion regarding [Nombre 030], it should not be forgotten that taking part in a criminal organization corresponds to the existence of a prior agreement and then performing specific functions constitutes the division of functions, being in this way a joint participation as co-perpetration (coautoría) exists, therefore his actions and contributions were indispensable and without them the goal of the organization would not have been fulfilled, thus, he is considered a co-perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas)» (cf. folios 767 to 768 of the judgment). As can be inferred from the preceding passage, the lower court (a quo) considered that, based on the initial facts set forth in the indictment, which describe the existence of the criminal organization and its mode of operation, it was possible to infer the charge of the crime of drug trafficking against the defendant [Nombre 030]. This Chamber differs from such assessment. The charge (imputación) in criminal matters constitutes one of the essential pillars of due process, as it facilitates the effective exercise of the right to technical and material defense of the individual charged. A correct charge implies that the indictment contains a clear, precise, and detailed account (relación clara, precisa y circunstanciada) of the facts constituting the crime, thereby delimiting the object of the proceedings; thus, the person named as the accused has the opportunity to understand the conduct attributed to them and to structure a defense strategy that allows them to contest it. Article 303 of the Código Procesal Penal in this regard states: «When the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) deems that the investigation provides grounds to bring the accused to public trial, it shall file the indictment requesting the opening of trial. The indictment must contain: [...] b) The precise and detailed account of the punishable act attributed.» This requirement imposed on the prosecuting body is not a mere formality, but a procedural guarantee that protects the defendant from facing a trial based on vague or imprecise charges. In this way, the aim is to prevent the criminal process, where the state's punitive power is exercised, from becoming a scenario of defenselessness, where the accused person may be surprised with a conviction based on charges they could not rebut, because they were unexpected or incomprehensible. Regarding the principle of the charge, this Chamber reiterates and shares the criterion expressed by the Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia de Cartago in resolution No. 2019-0093, at 10:49 hours on March 22, 2019, namely: «II. [...] the principle of the charge requires that the accused person clearly knows what they are being accused of, understood as the specific historical fact [...] The foregoing is so, in light of what the most authoritative doctrine establishes, according to which: \"...for someone to be able to defend themselves, it is essential that there be something to defend against: that is, something they are attributed to have done or omitted to do in the factual world, with significance in the legal world, a requirement known in criminal procedural law as the charge (imputación). The nucleus of that charge is, as has been observed, a factual hypothesis —an act or omission according to whether it is argued that it violates a prohibition or a mandate of the legal order— attributed to the accused, which, in the judgment of the person formulating it, leads to criminal-legal consequences, since it contains all the elements, according to criminal law, of a punishable act. A correctly formulated charge is the key that opens the door to the possibility of defending oneself efficiently, because it allows denying all or some of its elements to avoid or lessen the criminal-legal consequence to which, it is intended, it leads, or, alternatively, adding elements which, combined with those affirmed, also lead to avoiding the consequence or reducing it. But for the possibility of being heard to be an efficient means of exercising the defense, it cannot rest on a more or less vague or confused attribution of malice or enmity with the legal order, that is, an imprecise and disordered account of the act or omission charged to the accused, and much less on an abstraction (committed homicide or usurpation), resorting to the name of the infraction, but rather, on the contrary, must have as its presupposition the clear, precise, and detailed affirmation of a specific, singular event, from the life of a person. This means describing an occurrence —which is supposed to be real— with all the circumstances of manner, time, and place that locate it in the world of facts (temporally and spatially) and provide its concrete materiality; language must be used as descriptive of a specific event that has already occurred, locatable in time and space, and not to mention conceptual categories. Otherwise, the person being heard will not be able to attempt an efficient defense, since they will not be able to deny or affirm specific elements, but, at most, it will be possible for them to affirm or deny qualities or qualifiers (I am not a murderer, I am not bad, I am good, etc.)...\" (MAIER, Julio. Derecho Procesal Penal. Volume I. Editores del Puerto s.r.l. Second edition, Buenos Aires, pp. 553, 2002). Hence, a first conclusion that stands out is that a correct charge implies a phenomenological determination of a specific fact and not a mere abstraction that prevents knowing what one is being accused of». From this perspective, the criminal charge demands a phenomenological determination of the attributed fact, that is, it must be presented as a specific event, located in time and space, with information that allows the material and technical defense to understand the manner in which it occurred. The abstract or generic invocation of actions carried out within the criminal group is not enough —without a precise determination of who acted and what they did— but it must be specific and detailed, so that it can be contested, as only in this way is a real and effective defense guaranteed. Mere belonging to a criminal group does not constitute a carte blanche to assign each of its members the status of co-perpetrators in the totality of acts that could be committed within the organization. It is also necessary that the specific contribution made by each member has been charged and proven within the framework of the division of functions that is characteristic of group action. In this case, after studying the facts contained in the indictment —which are consistent with those held as proven—, this Chamber concludes that, as claimed by the appellants, the crime of aggravated drug trafficking was not charged against [Nombre 030] in it. Although the trial court considered that the first and second facts could give rise to the offense, the truth is that, due to the specific way in which this indictment was structured, what is observed is that those points have an introductory and contextual nature, because they contain a general description of the criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking and the way it operated, mentioning several people as its members, including [Nombre 030]. However, this reference, by itself, does not contain the description of a specific action individually reproachable to each person mentioned —and specifically to [Nombre 030]—, which could be subsumed under one of the statutory conducts contained in article 58 of Law No. 8204; rather, it serves a descriptive function, as a general framework, which positions the reader regarding the context of the criminal phenomenon that will be developed in subsequent facts. It is from the third fact onward, where the functions of each member of the organization are defined, that the specific actions that can be reproached to each of the accused begin to be specified. For these reasons, in the indictment filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office in this case, the first and second facts operate as a preamble to the criminal dynamics and not as a formulation of charges that can be considered independently in relation to the following points of the factual account, in which, as already stated, the actions carried out by each defendant are specified; consequently, it does not allow the principle of the charge to be deemed satisfied, because it does not consist of a clear, precise, and detailed description of a statutory act of aggravated drug trafficking. In light of the foregoing, the position adopted by the trial court is not acceptable, since this would empty an essential guarantee of due process of its content, by allowing a generic mention to be equated with a formal charge. Once again, it is insisted, the attribution of charges in a charging instrument must be express and should not be deduced from generic or tangential references.\n\nIt is not meant in any way that the facts alluded to have no function, for the truth is that, together with other events that unfold later, they do make it possible to understand the conduct attributed to each accused. What occurs, in the case of [Nombre 030], is that in the following points no description was made of actions related to drug trafficking, but only to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Thus, even though the evidence presented would have made it possible to attribute to the defendant additional criminal conduct beyond that actually charged, in particular: his participation in the activity of illegal trade of psychotropic substances, the lack of a formal accusation (imputación) constitutes an insurmountable impediment to assigning criminal liability for them. It is concluded that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) did not charge [Nombre 030] with the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, which is why it was not feasible to issue a conviction for that crime. Based on the foregoing, the ground of appeal is declared with merit (con lugar); consequently, the conviction issued against [Nombre 030] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is revoked, as is the sentence imposed, and in its place, he is acquitted of all punishment and liability for that crime. \n\n**XXIII. Third ground of the appeal filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Nombre 030].** He alleges \"Lack of probative and intellectual reasoning (fundamentación probatoria intelectiva) by the lower court (a quo) leading to a defective material and legal motivation regarding the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking.\" The defense counsel affirms that, in accordance with our procedural design, the three levels of reasoning in a judgment—probative (descriptive and intellectual), factual (which requires linking the charged facts with the evidence to determine the proven facts), and legal—must maintain coherence with one another. On this topic, he cites ruling no. 2006-003 of the former Court of Criminal Cassation (Tribunal de Casación Penal) of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela. He notes that according to Article 39 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), together with Articles 142, 178 subsection a), 361, and 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), the reasoning for each of these aspects is an essential requirement for the validity of the judgment. He explains that, in this case, there were never sufficient evidentiary elements to prove the crime of drug trafficking. Despite this, at folio 768 of the judgment, various actions are listed that are identified as having been carried out by [Nombre 030] and that the trial court deems essential for the operation of the organization dedicated to drug trafficking. However, none of this conduct formed part of the list of proven facts, a transcendental aspect that the lower court (a quo) tried to circumvent through two lines of reasoning: \"1.) that all of this conduct lies within the spatial-temporal framework of the investigation and 2.) that, in conclusion, it should not be forgotten that by being part of an alleged organization, [Nombre 030] acted according to a prior agreement and therefore his actions were an essential part of the perpetrator's plan [...] and thus he is considered a perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking\" (f. 7244). The appellant refers to the facts charged and proven in relation to [Nombre 030], visible at folios 277, 278, and 298 of the judgment document, and points out that these refer to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), but do not relate to the specific conduct and the conclusions reached by the trial court for the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking. He notes that the lower court (a quo) established that on October 26, 2019, [Nombre 030] led the transport of a substance that gave off a bad odor and had to be guarded. From these two characteristics, the judges assumed that what was transported were drugs belonging to the organization. Dr. Badilla Villanueva argues that this syllogism is invalid, and furthermore, a factual situation that was never charged is taken as true, since the act of transportation was not included within the factual framework attributed to [Nombre 030]. He argues that the appealed ruling contains extensive verbatim transcriptions of the statement of OIJ officer [Nombre 092] (pp. 726-729), transcriptions of telephone conversations (pp. 743-745, 749-751 and 751-756), of the report on intercepted calls (pp. 733-736) as well as a police report (pp. 737-739), concluding that based on this investigative activity, it is determined that [Nombre 030] was part of the criminal organization. Likewise, it is affirmed that [Nombre 030] accompanied [Nombre 001] to visit his wife in the prison where she was held and that his home was visited by members of the criminal group, also alleging that \"his interest\" is seen in investing in vehicles. He highlights that the trial judges infer, without solid basis, that when he negotiated the purchase of armored windshields in Guatemala and said that before finalizing the purchase he had to ask for authorization, he was referring to [Nombre 001] as the ringleader of the group, which is nothing more than an interpretation by the lower court (a quo). It was also considered as evidence that [Nombre 030], [Nombre 033] and [Nombre 022] were together at the Monge Store located near the Rotonda de Las Garantías Sociales, on December 8, 2019. The defense counsel argues, in this regard, that the probative analysis included by the trial court between folios 767 and 768 of the judgment document is insufficient because it constitutes reasoning by transcription or mention of the content of the existing evidence, in particular police reports and telephone conversations, but without fulfilling the duty to justify why it assigns a certain value to the evidence. He points out that [Nombre 030] was convicted because he was located in surveillance operations with different members of the criminal organization at his home and other places, because he was occasionally seen in the company of [Nombre 001] and because on one occasion he made arrangements to buy polarized glass in Guatemala (despite the fact that the purchase was not finalized). Furthermore, because in October 2019 he participated in conversations regarding the transport of a material that gave off a bad odor. He maintains that all of these are equivocal pieces of evidence (indicios anfibológicos), according to what was indicated by the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) of the Supreme Court of Justice in ruling no. 822-2003 of September 22, 2003, insofar as they admit explanations different from the one chosen by the trial court. He reasons that both the nature of the material transported in October 2019, and the reason for the meetings at [Nombre 030]'s home, are analyzed from a perspective of Author-Based Criminal Law (Derecho Penal de autor). He indicates that the legal motivation for the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking, visible at folio 894 of the judgment, alludes to actions typical of money laundering and departs from the reasons previously indicated in the same ruling to try to justify participation in the crime of drug trafficking, including that he led an alleged transport of psychotropic substances in October 2019, that he tried to buy vehicles and armored glass; that he accompanied [Nombre 001] on visits to prison facilities and that he met with alleged members of the criminal group. This situation, in his opinion, evidences a lack of coordination between the proven facts, the factual reasoning, and the legal reasoning. The defense counsel maintains, as a grievance, that if the lower court (a quo) had not incurred the vice of reasoning indicated, it would have acquitted [Nombre 030] of the crime of drug trafficking. He requests that the ground of appeal be upheld and that the accused be acquitted directly in this venue. Alternatively, that a retrial (reenvío) be ordered. **First ground of the appeal of the judgment sent personally by the co-defendant [Nombre 030].** He claims \"Lack of factual reasoning in the judgment, due to the absence of proven facts that constitute or demonstrate any type of function, collaboration, or role within the group activity of possession of drugs for trafficking\" (f. 7362 front). The appellant alleges a violation of Articles 142, 143 and related articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). After transcribing the conduct attributed against him by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) (f. 7363 front and back), he points out that none of the actions attributed to [Nombre 030] correspond to any act related to the sale or distribution of drugs. He notes that the existence of a criminal organization that distributed drugs on a large scale through a conglomerate of \"bunkers\" that operated mainly in the sectors of Tibás, León XIII, Santo Domingo de Heredia and surrounding sites was taken as proven. He states that it is from folio 724 of the judgment document that the lower court (a quo) addresses the responsibility of [Nombre 030] in the acts constituting drug trafficking.\n\nAs a first element, the court alleges that [Name 030] participated on three occasions in “alleged acts of custody of the so-called leader [Name 001], while he was visiting his spouse at the Vilma Curling Women’s Penitentiary Center (El Buen Pastor)” (f. 7364 fte.). The judges derived this information primarily from the statement of judicial investigator [Name 092], who observed [Name 030] dropping off and later picking up [Name 001] from the indicated penal center. The appellant argues that said action is not criminal and is also completely unrelated to the crime under investigation, but rather was a favor done for a childhood friend. He explains that, furthermore, his telephone communications were intercepted and as a result the trial court used, as circumstantial evidence of interest to prove that [Name 030] formed part of the criminal organization, the conversations identified with sequence nos. 05388344, 04197726, and 05578602, which, from his perspective, were analyzed in an excessive and forced manner, to the point that the first of the indicated telephone conversations was not even effective or did not connect with the interlocutor. In addition to the foregoing, conversations of the accused in which he was recorded negotiating some licit good, such as, for example, the purchase or exchange of a vehicle with the Purdy Motors agency, were considered as circumstantial evidence. He adds that one of the main pieces of circumstantial evidence that the a quo took into account for the conviction of [Name 030] consists of a call made between the telephone number [Value 113] belonging to [Name 030], and [Value 112] registered to [Name 216] (call with sequence 04603491), which was captured on October 26, 2019. Said conversation was interpreted by the judges as support or assistance in the transportation of an undetermined illicit substance, specifically, for the benefit of the criminal organization, even going so far as to state that it was a drug stash, despite the fact that it was not explained how that determination was reached and that [Name 216] was never investigated or even mentioned as a person of interest in the investigation. He considers that the data yielded by the call dated October 26, 2019, are insufficient to establish that the accused assisted in the transportation of any type of drug. There is also no additional data or evidence to allow asserting that the illicit shipment—be it a substance, material, or even animal—was for the benefit of the criminal group, due to the lack of any other evidentiary element and because the police did not intercept said shipment. He states that the interpretation given by the trial judges to the call intercepted on October 26 is not the only possible one and, therefore, it constitutes ambiguous evidence. In his particular analysis of the intellectual evidentiary support for the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking, the appellant points out that it was based on the use of conversations captured with other persons who are also part of this proceeding, but regarding them, it is not indicated what unlawful conduct is extracted from the dialogues, nor are the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence specified. Within this analysis, the a quo gives special relevance to the conversations held between [Name 001] and [Name 030], but as occurs with the rest of the telephone interceptions, “logical leaps” are made between the transcription of the content of the conversation and the inferences made by the court, without any type of objective support. No effort is made to substantiate why it is held as true that [Name 030] acted under the hierarchical direction of [Name 001] and that his task was the recruitment of persons to assist in the legitimization of capital obtained from illegal drug trafficking, as the a quo had established it. He indicates that in the case of a call captured between [Name 001] and a subject identified as “[Name 244]”, it is assumed that when they refer to “the fat one (el gordo)”, they are talking about [Name 030]. In the case of the conversations held between [Name 030] and two saleswomen from the Purdy Motors Agency, named [Name 217] and “[Name 218]” (which are transcribed in the appeal, between fs. 7375 and 7376), the appellant notes that it cannot be understood—nor is it explained in the ruling—how from their content, which has to do with the coordination of maintenance, inquiries about the availability of spare parts or accessories such as a cooler for a vehicle, all of which are legal acts, the accused is linked to a task of coordinating said tasks for the criminal organization. The foregoing, especially because, as he indicates, both [Name 030] and his wife have been customers of the brand and have acquired Toyota vehicles since long ago. The accused also highlights, in exercising his material defense, the content of the telephone interception included from folio 751 of the documented sentence, in which [Name 030] was exploring the possibility of acquiring an armored windshield in Guatemala. For the appellate judges, said conversation is a clear indication that the accused intended to acquire said good to install it in vehicles of “the organization” (cfr. f. 7377), and it is even stated that when [Name 030] indicates that before finalizing the purchase, he must consult it with “that dude (aquel maje)” (f. 7378), he is referring to [Name 001], even though the latter’s name was not pronounced in the dialogue. It was also not investigated or analyzed whether said importation of a windshield or that of any vehicle was finalized. In another vein, the a quo used, to underpin the conviction, a large number of calls made from the control post of the Condominio Río Palma, the place of residence of the accused with his family, in order to determine the visits received by him between the months of November and December of the year 2019 (cfr. f. 757 of the documented sentence). The appellant indicates that, based on the entries to the home of [Name 030], the trial court concluded that he received constant visits from members of the alleged criminal organization, despite the fact that among the visitors were persons such as [Name 219], [Name 220], [Name 221], or [Name 222], who are not held to be members of the aforementioned group. In addition to the foregoing, he states that the reason for the visits is indeterminable for the judges, so it is unfounded to assert, as the a quo does, that the visits had the purpose of “coordinating the activity of a criminal group and the collection of money from the same group” (cfr. f. 7379), especially when, as he maintains, the visitors were his friends. Regarding the situation that occurred on December 8, 2019, at the facilities of Importadora Monge, located in Zapote, he points out that, according to the report of Investigator [Name 092], while [Name 001] and [Name 030], as well as the latter’s family, were at said location shopping, several unknown persons entered the site who fired shots indicating that it was a robbery. Said situation and the defensive attitude of [Name 030] towards his family and [Name 001] led the a quo to use the event as another piece of circumstantial evidence of his participation in the alleged criminal group. However, it is not reasoned how a traumatic event that cannot be ruled out as having been a robbery attempt in which the accused rather appear as victims, can be used as evidence to prove their participation in illegal drug trafficking. The appellant explains, based on the foregoing, that the intellectual evidentiary analysis of the conviction issued against [Name 030] is based on a conglomeration of data obtained from the statement of officer [Name 092], consisting of his own perceptions, which, it is indicated, find support in the police reports, without considering that said documents were drafted by the declarant himself. He alleges that “the factual and legal basis of my conviction for the crime of drug trafficking is composed 98 percent of the mention of some fragments of the declaration of [Name 092] and the transcription of some captured conversations, which in turn do not reveal that my person was linked to any criminal organization” (cfr. f. 7381). He maintains that, since the preliminary hearing, in response to a clarification requested by the judge of the intermediate stage, the prosecutor José Pablo Jiménez “indicated that my person was accused only of a crime of money laundering” (f.\n\n7382), which, he explains, was because the accusatory piece “did not contain any fact linking me to the crime of drug trafficking, and the only reference in the accusation was for alleged acts of money laundering” (ibid.). He adds that the evidence for the prosecution, including the testimonial evidence, never linked him to drug trafficking activity at the local level. He indicates that, based on the foregoing, he planned with his then legal counsel, Mr. Simón Angulo, a defense strategy aimed solely at combating the attribution of the crime of asset legitimization. Despite the foregoing, he was surprisingly convicted for the crimes of drug trafficking and capital legitimization, which caused him defenselessness, because he was not accused of acts constituting the first offense, nor did the evidence presented point to that criminal charge with respect to his person. **Any ruling is omitted as unnecessary.** In the grounds of appeal from the legal and material defense previously outlined, the lack of imputation for the crime of drug trafficking against [Name 030] is again questioned, a circumstance that was addressed when reviewing the second ground of the appeal filed by Dr. Pablo Badilla Villanueva on his behalf, and therefore reference is made to that section. Given the manner in which the aforementioned complaint was resolved, it is pointless to address the remaining claims raised by the appellants. Regardless of whether there are indications that, assessed together, could be useful to support the conviction of the accused for the crime of drug trafficking, the factual basis of the accusation constitutes an insurmountable limit that marks the scope of the trial court’s ruling. The specific functions of [Name 030] that can be extracted at the evidentiary level and that could be relevant to attribute to [Name 030] participation in that latter offense were not charged. This being so, the conviction of said defendant for the crime of an aggravated violation of the Psychotropic Substances Law was impossible. Consequently, as unnecessary, **any ruling is omitted** on the first ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Name 030] and the third ground of his legal defense’s appeal.\n\n**XXIV. Second ground of the appeal against the judgment filed personally by co-defendant [Name 030].** He alleges *“Insufficient and incorrect reasoning, by considering the commission of a crime of capital legitimization as proven, without defining the origin of the possible legitimized assets or assets to be legitimized.”* The appellant alleges that, starting from folio 835 of the judgment document, the factual and intellectual basis for the conviction for the crime of money laundering against [Name 030] is set forth. In this sense, he points out that the factual basis that supported the declaration of guilt for said crime consists of points 5.4 and 5.6, even though the criminal origin of the money or assets intended to be laundered is neither mentioned nor proven. He indicates that the transcription of the statements of investigator [Name 225] and expert Elizabeth Flores constitutes the bulk of the justification for the conviction judgment, without an analytical effort regarding the evidence being appreciated on the part of the *a quo*, and without differentiating the reasoning for the declaration of criminal responsibility for the charge of drug trafficking from that corresponding to capital legitimization. He argues that there is no evidence in the case file (calls, surveillance, seizures, or any investigative act) that makes it possible to consider it certain that [Name 001] issued orders or assignments to [Name 030], or handed him money for the acquisition of high-value assets for use by the organization, as stated in the judgment. After explaining that he obtains his economic income from a family security company that pays contributions independently to the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) and that part of his income also comes from the public transportation business he has with his wife, [Name 033] Ulate, the appellant states that he collaborated with his friend ([Name 019]) so that the latter could acquire the Toyota Prado vehicle, license plate [Value 031], at the Purdy Motors Agency, without knowing that he would later facilitate the use of the automobile to [Name 001]. He argues that his involvement in the purchase of the vehicle with license plate [Value 031], including partial payments made from his own funds, was done under the knowledge that his friend ([Name 019]) was the acquirer and immediate owner of said automobile. He insists that the partial payments made by [Name 030] and his wife, as installments toward the price of said vehicle, were made with their own funds obtained legally from their *“professional and commercial activities”* (cf. f. 7387). He argues that the sentencing court assumed without any type of analysis that the vehicle with license plate [Value 031] was bought with money of illicit origin, adopting for that purpose the conclusions of officer [Name 225] and expert Elizabeth Flores as its own. He argues that there was no interest in tracing the origin of the money and assets used in the purchase of the automobile, among them the Volkswagen vehicle with license plate [Value 114], which was delivered as part of the payment for the Toyota Prado with license plate [Value 031], which was the property of [Name 030]’s wife and had been acquired since 2016 through her own savings and financing. He further indicates that there is no basis to affirm that the automobile was acquired for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001], and even less that [Name 030] knew it was going to be used by him. According to the appellant, the purchase of the Toyota Prado in question was part of a commercial business deal agreed upon between him and ([Name 019]), in which the delivery of the vehicle with license plate [Value 114] was agreed upon as part of the payment. He adds that the fact that on December 3, 2019, the automobile with license plate [Value 031] was found in use by [Name 001] does not make it possible to assert that he was its permanent user. In this regard, he notes that, according to the investigation itself, the Toyota Prado was not found in the possession of [Name 001] after the raids, and even *“[Name 019], subsequently and while deprived of liberty, sold and transferred the Toyota Prado vehicle [Value 031] to a third party from whom it was seized by the OIJ days later”* [sic] (f. 7390). In addition to that, he considers that the interception of a telephone communication between [Name 001] and “[Name 312]” only allows one to infer that on December 3, 2019, [Name 001] was driving the Toyota Prado vehicle, without one being able to derive from that his permanent enjoyment, much less the knowledge of [Name 030]. He cites in support ruling no. 337-2016 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, while highlighting that, in the present case, it was not demonstrated that *“he had at his disposal any amount of money derived from a drug trafficking crime”* (f. 7392). He refers, as a grievance, that a penalty of 15 years in prison was imposed on him for a crime of capital legitimization *“that does not fit with the facts held as proven”* (f. 7393). He indicates that the conduct is atypical and is based on an erroneous foundation, *“principally due to a lack of analysis of the origin of the monies paid at the Purdy Motors Agency”* (*ibid*).\n\n**Fourth objection of the appeal against the judgment filed by Dr. Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030].** He alleges *“Lack of intellectual evidentiary reasoning that affects the factual and legal reasoning of the judgment in relation to the conviction of [Name 030] for a crime of capital legitimization.”* The appellant states that one of the normative elements of the crime in question is the proof that the funds used or assets laundered derive from a serious crime; therefore, mere suspicions are not sufficient. He indicates that, under the theory of limited accessoriality, it could not be required that a conviction judgment be provided in relation to the predicate crime specifying the exact form of illegal acquisition of the money, but it does require that the origin of the assets from a serious crime be proven and not merely presumed. On this point, he alleges that starting from folio 835 of the judgment document, the facts held as proven in relation to [Name 030] are indicated, but it is notably lacking to establish from what specific analysis of the evidence it could conclude the functions attributed to him within the organization, without the transcription of the statement given by various investigators at trial, as well as the police conclusions contained in several reports, being sufficient for that purpose. Specifically, the statement of [Name 225] was copied (fs. 836-838 of the judgment); of Rodrigo Chaves Calvo (fs. 838-841 of the judgment); of report 10-SLC-R-22-CPA-15-21 dated April 22, 2022 (fs. 841-842 of the judgment) and the expansion of this report (fs. 843-846 of the judgment). Reference was also made to the dynamics of the purchase of the Land Cruiser Prado vehicle, indicating that it was made with funds derived from drug trafficking and that [Name 030] contributed *“a payment of one thousand dollars in cash and other minor payments, and it was equally accepted that Mr. [Name 030] made a significant payment with the delivery of a Volkswagen Jetta car of his property”* (f. 7269). But it was not determined which element of evidence provided the inputs to be certain about the origin of the money. He states that the trial court concluded the commission of the crime of capital legitimization based on 3 elements: 1) the description of the contribution of funds by [Name 030]; 2) the registration of the vehicle in the name of a third party; 3) the vehicle in question was driven by [Name 001]. He emphasizes that, in the legal reasoning (f. 911 of the judgment), it seems to attribute the purchase of the automobile in question to [Name 030], and therefore it appears to apply to him the provisions of subsection a) of Article 69 of Law 8204. Likewise, the evidence presented by the defense to prove the legality of the funds used by [Name 030] to acquire his own property was disregarded. However, there is a total absence of intellectual evidentiary reasoning to prove that the acquisition of the Land Cruiser Prado vehicle was made with funds or assets derived from a criminal activity sanctioned with a penalty of 4 years or more, particularly drug trafficking. He raises, as a grievance, that adequate intellectual evidentiary reasoning would have led to determining the nonexistence of evidence to define where the money used *“in the only fact condemned as constituting a crime of capital legitimization”* came from. He requests that the ground be declared with merit, the judgment be deemed ineffective and invalid, and his client be acquitted of all penalty and responsibility for the crime of capital legitimization. Alternatively, he requests that a retrial be ordered dimensioning what is legally appropriate (cf. fs. 7273).\n\n**Fifth ground of the appeal filed by Dr. Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030].** He claims *“Incorrect application of Article 69 of Law 8204, for lack of fulfillment of the objective and subjective elements of this charge.”* After conducting a review of the crime of capital legitimization provided for in Law No. 8204, the appellant points out that, at the normative level, it is necessary that the assets of economic interest that are acquired, converted, or transferred in this charge derive from a serious crime (with a penalty equal to or greater than 4 years of imprisonment), and at the subjective level, it is necessary *“that the active subject knows the origin of this money and accepts its legitimization”* (f. 7276). He notes that, according to the recognized author Francisco Castillo, mere suspicion that the object derives from a punishable act is not sufficient. He cites, in support of his position, ruling no. 1191-2016 of the Sentence Appeals Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. He indicates that the appealed judgment does not address the examination of the proof of the illegal origin of the money used for the purchase of assets.\n\nOnly at folio 846 of the judgment is it noted that [Name 030] paid one thousand dollars toward the purchase of the Land Cruiser Prado vehicle on March 16, 2018, and that on March 11 of the same year, he had made another payment of the same amount. Furthermore, that later [Name 030] “*authorized the transfer of his advances in favor of* [Name 245] *for $7,000; the court concluding that these funds originated from drug trafficking (narcotráfico) activity*” (f. 7278). Finally, the defense argues that at folios 847 to 848 and 853 of the challenged ruling, the court asserts that [Name 030] instructed ([Name 019]) on how to proceed with the acquisition of the Land Cruiser Prado vehicle registered in the latter's name, with assets originating from the illicit activity of drug trafficking (narcotráfico) and knowing that the motor vehicle was going to be used by [Name 001]. It omits, however, “*any analysis regarding the proof that the money used in the purchase of this Land Cruiser vehicle and the vehicle given as a form of payment had illicit origin*” (cfr. f. 7278). He considers that, even if it is reasoned that some individuals related to the case engaged in illegal activities, that they would not have resources to buy high-end vehicles, and that the motor vehicle was used by a third party, “*this does not prove that the money that [Name 030] applied as a payment toward the purchase of this vehicle and the delivery of his vehicle as partial payment have a criminal origin*” (f. 7279). He alleges, as a grievance, that “*since it was not established that the money paid by [Name 030] for the purchase of the Land Cruiser and the vehicle given as payment owned by him were of illicit origin, there is an absence of the normative element of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), and therefore it is concluded that the conviction issued against [Name 030] is contrary to law and must be revoked due to being an atypical action*” (f. 7279). He requests that the sentence be revoked and his client be acquitted of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), as it constitutes an atypical conduct (f. 7979-7280).\n\n**The objections raised against the trial judgment must be declared without merit**. Having analyzed the first-instance judgment issued by the *a quo* in its entirety, in the opinion of this Chamber, the claims raised by the defense do not proceed, because the intellectual foundation outlined to prove the criminal responsibility of [Name 030] for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is adequate, sufficient, and correctly structured. The participation of the defendant was addressed in two distinct sections of the judgment: the first entitled “*Regarding [Name 030] and the acts of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas)*” (cfr. fs. 724 to 768 of the judgment) and the second called “*Facts related to [Name 030] and [Name 019]*” (cfr. fs. 835 to 860 of the judgment). Before starting the corresponding analysis, it is important to point out that, although this Chamber concluded that the participation of the defendant [Name 030] in the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas) was not charged in the accusation—which constitutes an insurmountable impediment to issuing a conviction against him for that crime—this does not exclude the possibility of considering the reasoning expressed by the *a quo* on this matter, for the resolution of the remaining complaints raised by the legal and material defense, because the judgment constitutes a logical-legal unit. In the first of the aforementioned sections, a series of foundations were recorded that allow a better understanding of [Name 030]'s connection to the criminal organization and the functions he performed, which is closely related to the examination conducted by the trial court in the second section. The judgment states that, based on the evidence presented in the adversarial proceeding, it was able to determine that [Name 030] appeared in the investigation from its beginnings, when the judicial police located him accompanying [Name 001] to the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center (Centro de Atención Institucional Buen Pastor), during the visit made on June 29, 2018. The event was recorded in report IP-297-EN-19 (cfr. fs. 1 to 87 of the main file), of which an extensive transcription was made in the judgment. As an important detail, it is noted that the document recorded, as background, that in the year 2014 [Name 030] was arrested for the crime of illegal possession of a permitted weapon, an occasion on which he was accompanied by [Name 001], which reflects a pre-existing relationship between both subjects. The judgment also recorded a passage from police report IP-128-EN-19 (cfr. fs. 237 to 356 of the main file), from which it highlights that [Name 030] was linked to the alias “[Name 241]” because [Name 001] referred to him in that way in the intercepted communications (as in sequence 05388344, from telephone line [Value 115]); also with the aliases “[Name 241]” and “[Name 241]”, since the accused identified himself in that manner (in sequence 04197726, from telephone line [Value 115]). Also, that one of the telephone lines he used and whose interception was requested was [Value 115].\n\nBased on the evidence presented at trial, the lower court (a quo) was able to determine that the accused [Name 030] was one of the people closest to [Name 001], as he provided accompaniment on various occasions, such as on May 29, 2019, when he drove him in the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado T vehicle, with license plate [Value 065]—once again—to the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center. As on other occasions, the judicial police noted that a whole security operation unfolded around the alias “[Name 084],” since he was also accompanied by [Name 029], [Name 007], and ([Name 013]). A similar dynamic was recorded on June 12, 2019, and June 26, 2018, during visits by [Name 001] to the aforementioned prison, where he was driven by [Name 030], along with other subjects under investigation acting as escorts. These events were recorded in report IP-227-EN-19 (cf. pages 392 to 205 of the main file), from which various transcriptions were included in the judgment, among them one that accounts for a social activity carried out by the individuals under investigation at Club Alianza, in La Garita de Alajuela, on June 23, 2019. To complement the above and reinforce the existing relationship between [Name 030] and [Name 001], the following was set out in the judgment: “There is a direct telephone call between [Name 001] and [Name 030], which establishes that there was always direct communication between the two. The call is as follows: ‘From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 04900430. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 117]. This call was made at 10:05 a.m., on October 2, 2019. [Name 030], alias “[Name 241]”, spoke with [Name 001], alias “[Name 084],” holder of telephone line [Value 097]. [Name 241] said – Hello. [Name 001] said – Dude, where are you? [Name 241] said – Ah. [Name 001] said – Where are you? [Name 241] said – Who is this? [Name 001] said – Well, it's me, asshole. [Name 241] said – And didn't you say eleven? [Name 001] said – Well, imagine. [Name 241] said – You're kidding. [Name 001] said – Where are you? [Name 241] said – We're on our way, well, I'm here by the father-in-law's. [Name 001] said – Where? [Name 241] said – By the father-in-law's. [Name 001] said – Damn, the old man is closer, man. [Name 241] said – I'll call the old man to come right away. [Name 001] said – No, no, I already called the old man, asshole. [Name 241] said – So what? [Name 001] said – Just imagine, well, here's the advantage, I have the advantage, yes, I have the advantage but not for long, so come this way. [Name 241] said – But is the old man coming for you or what? [Name 001] said – He's coming for me, anyway I have the advantage because I have like five GAO motorcycles parked at the gate, I would tell [Name 065] to let them kill me but well, they could move at any moment, asshole. [Name 241] said – Where do I meet you then? [Name 001] said – Well, I'm here, asshole, where else am I going to be? [Name 241] said – Since you're saying the old man is going to pick you up. [Name 001] said – Yes, while he's on his way. [Name 241] said – Obviously he'll get there first. [Name 001] said – Come on your way. [Name 241] said – Alright, okay.’” (cf. page 748 of the judgment). From the previous communication, it is highlighted that [Name 001], upon noticing a police presence at his location, calls [Name 030] to find out where he is. The communication suggests that the individuals had arranged to meet and for that reason [Name 001] requires [Name 030]'s help to evade any action against him, as he mentions he has an advantage, but does not know for how long. Based on these elements of evidence, the trial court rightly concluded that [Name 030] was an active member of the criminal organization led by [Name 001] and one of the individuals closest to the latter.\n\nIn addition to the above, the lower court (a quo) took up an event that occurred on December 8, 2019, at approximately 17:30 hours, at the Monge Store business, located at the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales, when what the judicial police classified as an “attack” against [Name 001] took place, which is nothing more than an attempt on his life by several individuals traveling on motorcycles. The inquiries carried out by the judicial police determined that [Name 001] was in the business accompanied by [Name 022] and [Name 030], as well as a woman and a child. Because several gunshots were fired inside the commercial premises, the authorities were alerted and judicial agents arrived at the scene, who interviewed those present, among them [Name 030], who omitted to state that [Name 001] was at the site at the time of the event. The presence of the accused was established later, through the review of surveillance cameras. This circumstance, also assessed by the trial court, once again proves not only the relationship between the individuals, but also that [Name 030] tried to avoid any implication of [Name 001] with the situation that occurred, by not revealing to the police that he was at the location. The details of that event are recorded in report IP-017-EN-20 (cf. pages 1020 to 1283 of the investigation file), from which an extensive transcription appears in the judgment. According to said document, based on the interviews of those present at the site and the review of surveillance cameras, it was possible to verify that the aim of the gunmen was not to rob the commercial premises, but to attack [Name 001], [Name 030], and ([Name 013]), since the individuals entered the site looking for them and fired towards where they were, by the store's checkout area (cf. pages 760 to 767 of the judgment). Another important piece of information described in the instance ruling, referring to [Name 030], is that he was visited at his home by [Name 029], who, within the criminal organization, had as one of his functions making drug deliveries to other criminal organizations and receiving the corresponding payments—as recorded in Considerando X—an aspect that forms a direct connection with the source of the money he used for the acquisition of movable goods.\n\nIn addition to what has already been mentioned regarding the accompaniment and custody of [Name 030] toward [Name 001], the judgment reconstructs other activities that were carried out within the criminal structure. Among them, the maintenance of the vehicles used by the members of the criminal organization, not only the basic maintenance for its regular operation, but even the equipping with security implements such as armoring. In that regard, sequences 03102816, 05209266, 05857621, 0795371 —related to ordinary vehicle maintenance— , 3026360, 05583055, 04499697 —linked to the purchase of provided windows— , all from the intercepted line [Value 123]. It is importantly noted that, regarding the purchase of the windows, [Name 030] states that he must discuss it with \"el mae,\" which is the way the members of the organization referred to [Name 001], thereby reinforcing what was already analyzed in the judgment about the relationship of these subjects, but of even greater relevance, the hierarchy of the latter.\n\nOn the other hand, from a series of intercepted communications —sequences 04603491, 02301721, 03201613, 03102039, 05401649, 03604476, 05401658, 03001602, 04201727 and 04301687, from telephone line [Value 116], associated with [Name 030]— the *a quo* concludes that on October 26, 2019, the defendant [Name 030] participated in a drug transport. Although this Chamber considers that with the analyzed information it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that this was the activity being carried out by the defendant, given the lack of corroboration from other sources, the truth is that it does constitute a strong indication of his participation in activities that are not of a licit nature and hence the clandestine action reflected in those conversations. Other functions that the court reconstructed from the evidence presented at the adversarial hearing, and which is an important approximation to the actions actually attributed to the subject, consist of the purchase and sale of motor vehicles. Due to its relevance, the passage from the judgment on this particular matter is transcribed: \"*Continuing with the telephone intervention of Mr. [Name 030], calls stand out in which he shows interest in investing in the purchase of heavy vehicles and negotiating light vehicles, which were transcribed as follows: 'From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 02401985. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Value 118]. This call was made at 14:50 hours, on the day of November 1, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]” made a call to Unidentified Subject, user of telephone line [Value 118]. [Name 030] asks about a truck that is for sale, in Sarapiquí, which has a Caterpillar brand engine, he asked if that is the best cash price and when they can go see it, the Subject tells him to give him the number to send him photos. From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 05701796. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 117]. This call was made at 08:56 hours, on the day of October 29, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]/[Name 241]” made a call to telephone line [Value 117], which belongs to Toyo Occidente, where he spoke with an operator. They start talking about aspects that are not relevant until minute 00:01:46, Operator said – with whom do I have the pleasure excuse me, [Name 030] said -[Name 030], Operator said -[Name 053], [Name 030] said eight four seven eight thirty nine five ([Value 116]), Operator said -thirty nine five, Prado TXL, two thousand eighteen, , [Name 030] said -how much do you receive for that two thousand fifteen, Operator said -it is national, [Name 030] said -yes national, bought there at the Toyota, they continue talking about aspects that are not relevant until minute 00:02:42, Operator said -I have to consult, if you like give me the license plate number and I will be sending you the information via Whatsapp, [Name 231] said -yes so that I can start getting familiar with that right away, Operator said -yes of course, [Name 030] said -he says that, (extra call he asked, what is the license plate of this car love), [Value 065], they continue talking about aspects that are not relevant. From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 03901735. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 119]. This call was made at 15:28 hours, on the day of October 29, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]/[Name 241]” made a call to Unidentified Subject, user of telephone line [Value 119]. Subject said -hello, good afternoon, [Name 030] said -good afternoon friend, the truck you sell, Subject said -yes sir, [Name 030] said -is it manual or automatic, Subject said -automatic, [Name 030] said -ah it is automatic, Subject said -I have the damper or bellhousing, whatever it's called, and the pedals in case they want to do it, [Name 030] said -manual, Subject said -yes, just that part is worth like two hundred thousand, unintelligible, zero nine, one ten, [Name 030] said -ok ok, well I'm going to ask and I'll return your call whatever the case, thanks, Subject said -if you want to see it or anything you let me know, I'm here in Guápiles, where are you from, [Name 030] said -San José, but still I'm going to consult with my friend to see what he says, Subject said -push it push it and I'll quietly throw you a hundred thousand there, [Name 030] said -thanks, well thanks. From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 05801793. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 120]. This call was made at 18:34 hours, on the day of October 29, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]/[Name 241]” made a call to a Subject Identified as [Name 232], user of telephone line [Value 120]. [Name 030] spoke with the subject about the purchase of a Freightliner truck, manual, ten-speed, [Name 030] offers him a Toyota Yaris 2002 as part of the deal, the subject indicated that it is located in San Rafael de Alajuela, also [Name 030] told him that he was going to send him the number so he could send him the location. From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 05001633. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 117]. This call was made at 16:27 hours, on the day of October 7, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]” spoke with a subject who is a user of telephone line [Value 117]. Alias [Name 241] requested information about Prado TXL 2018 and Prado TX 2018 vehicles. The subject indicated to him that both vehicles were already sold. [Name 241] consulted the price of the 2018 Prado to calculate. The subject indicated to him that they are around sixty-four thousand dollars. [Name 241] asked if they received. Subject told him yes'* (cfr. pp. 763 to 745 of the judgment)*. One of the communications that stands out for its relevance and content is the following: \"*The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 121]. This call was made at 13:08 hours on May 16, 2019.*\n\nSubject spoke with [Nombre 241], subject said – man [Nombre 233] everything good?, [Nombre 241] said – yeah, go ahead, everything's cool, subject said – man I got a buyer for the BM man for twenty-seven five hundred, [Nombre 241] said – man but it's just that, you know what the thing is, it's that right now it's not good for me to sell it like that anymore, subject said – uh-huh, [Nombre 241] said – that honestly to hand it over for that cash, let's see, it's gonna be more of a hassle for me, subject said – how do you mean? how do you mean?, [Nombre 241] said – hand it over I mean sell it to hand over that cash it's gonna be more of a hassle and that's it, it's for tomorrow at one, that's just it man, subject said – it's not good for you to sell it?, [Nombre 241] said – no, it's no good for me anymore man, that would have worked for me before, right now it doesn't, subject said – yeah man I just now got that guy's number, some girl who works at the Mercedes dealership man, [Nombre 241] said – uh-huh, subject said – yeah man and she has a Mercedes and says man what is he buying himself? man a Prado I tell him a a Prado and I sent him a photo of a BM, tell him to come buy this Mercedes man, [Nombre 241] said – what a shame huh, yeah but oh well everything's already set man, subject said – that sucks and like, can't he even come with the dough?, [Nombre 241] said – well it's just that no because imagine me handing over that dough, plus that car isn't in my name, it's gonna be more of a hassle, subject said – no, what the guy says is just that, like it's just a power of attorney, [Nombre 241] said – no, but yeah understand but so you understand me, the car isn't in my name so me getting that cash, imagine me depositing that cash, from now until tomorrow it's not enough time, no way, never, you understand me?, subject said – haa it's because it isn't in your name, [Nombre 241] said – no, so if I go to deposit that cash at Toyota they're gonna ask me, like imagine, it's gonna be a hassle, in the sense that, well yeah like where did I get it and the whole thing so I sold a car but the car isn't in my name, subject said – yeah, and the Prado are you gonna put it in your name or?, [Nombre 241] said – in the wife's name, subject said – haaa ok, in your, [Nombre 241] said – right now what's best is just handing over the car because any issue, well no, you're trading in a car, nothing happens there, it's not the same as depositing the cash all at once, subject said – mmm I see I see I see, [Nombre 241] said – if it had been a bit earlier yeah because it gives me the chance to deposit the cash in installments but we're already set for tomorrow man, it's always like that when you're gonna do something someone always shows up, subject said – man yeah what a shitty situation man, but it's just that this guy man, man and it was on facebook that I saw the guy today man, [Nombre 241] said – uh-huh, subject said – I saw him on facebook man so I sent him a message and told him so we were talking there and he tells me man so then I told him man look you're at the Mercedes dealership, I have this and that BM and he tells me man I have a reseller, [Nombre 241] said – yeah, what a shame subject said – I have a reseller for that man, yeah man, [Nombre 241] said – that sucks it would have been everything, oh well maybe next time huh, subject said – yeah man, and the guy says tell him that, that he gives him, I have a Mercedes right here for the Prado he says (they talk about matters of no interest)» (cfr. fs. 734 to 735 of the judgment). In this communication [Nombre 030] talks with a third party about the difficulties posed by using cash proceeds from the sale of a vehicle, because it was not in his name. This conduct is clearly compatible with the function attributed to him, which consists of logistics for registering assets of the criminal organization in the name of third parties and in this way diluting the trace of money from criminal activity. As a complement, the following information recorded in the judgment: «Other links of [Nombre 030] with the organization led by [Nombre 001] were evidenced by the following call: “From [Valor 097]. Call identified with sequence number 0205741. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 122]. This call was made at 20:26 hours on July 17, 2019. [Nombre 001] alias “[Nombre 084]” made a call to Subject Identified as “[Nombre 234]”, from which the following can be extracted: [Nombre 234] said -Hello, [Nombre 001] said -go ahead, [Nombre 234] said -eeeh ok, it's done, we still need the thing about, the thing about, to see if we can talk to “[Nombre 235]”, he says, what's his name “[Nombre 241]”, [Nombre 001] said -the fat guy, the fat guy, [Nombre 234] said -well the fat guy, yeah to see if we can talk to him, the, the girl, the chick, already sent me the accounts right, I also asked her to send me her husband's, [Nombre 001] said -yes, yes, yes, [Nombre 234] said -we have ten people, adults, right, [Nombre 001] said -yes, but let's talk better in person, when, [Nombre 234] said -ready, eeh eeh, you tell me, [Nombre 001] said -well I'll call you right now, to see if I can I'll call you right now, anytime, [Nombre 234] said -ready, ready, ready, [Nombre 001] said -good. Communication ends.”\n\nIn the previous call [Name 001] speaks with the person identified as [Name 234] who told him that he got 10 adults, [Name 001] tells him that it is better to discuss it in person, in the context of the call [Name 001] clearly avoids the subject since he does not usually talk about illegal matters over the phone, [Name 234] makes reference to the fact that they should speak with the fat guy who was precisely one of the aliases of [Name 030], but in addition she [Name 244] stated that she already had 10 persons of legal age, which relates to the fact that [Name 030] was the appointee of [Name 001] for locating persons to lend their identity and appear as frontmen (testaferros) as will be elaborated upon in the section on money laundering (legitimación de capitales)\" (cf. pp. 748 to 749 of the judgment). This passage constitutes additional reinforcement of that role of recruiter of frontmen (testaferros) on the part of the accused, who, as indicated supra, goes by the aliases of \"[Name 241]\" and \"[Name 241]\", since a third party speaks with [Name 001] about the location of 10 persons for a purpose that cannot be discussed over the phone and which must be coordinated with [Name 030], thereby again alluding to actions of an irregular nature. Here it is necessary to indicate that in other sections of the judgment it was pointed out that [Name 001], in intercepted communications, made reference to the suspicion that he was being subjected to an intervention, which makes total sense that he refused to speak of any illegal activity over the phone. All of the above information, which comes from the section of the judgment called \"Regarding [Name 030] and the facts of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas)\", allows one to derive that [Name 030] is a member of the criminal organization and a person of utmost trust to [Name 001], because he is one of the subjects who provides custody and is in charge of his security. It is evident then that he knows of the criminal activities that the latter carries out and that have even made him the target of attempts against his life, which is the reason for the necessity of armoring his means of transport and having a constant escort. Note that even in one of the residences associated with [Name 001], specifically the one located in Ciudadela León XIII which is characterized as a five-story residence, a motor vehicle with armoring (blindaje) devices was located. In that regard, the judgment details: \"[Name 001] manages to maintain in his fleet another vehicle that is used in the criminal actions that narcotics trafficking (narcotráfico) demands of him, the first thing that must be made clear is that this vehicle was found in the residence located in León Trece, in the garage of the five-story house owned by [Name 001], as is verified since it was seized through seizure report number 0053502, this vehicle like the previous one was acquired with money from the profits of narcotics trafficking (narcotráfico) and has been used for the criminal actions investigated and accredited, it even maintains the same pattern regarding the owner since it is registered in the name of [Name 236], as a particularity said motor vehicle maintains a level of security of the armoring (blindaje) type, which guarantees ballistic protection against firearms, a situation that was reflected in the communications that were heard during the trial in which on at least one occasion members of the organization dealt with the acquisition of this type of security, in the following communication it is again seen that it is the defendant [Name 030] who is in charge of this: From [Value 123]. Call identified with sequence number 04499697. The intervened telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 124]. This call was made at 10:09 hours on the 16th of July, 2019. [Name 030] alias \"[Name 241]\" spoke with an unidentified subject. [Name 241] said – Aha. Subject said – Hey [Name 030], all good. [Name 241] said – Aha. Subject said—That, he told the man. [Name 241] said – Yes I'll wait to notify to see what he's going to do. Subject said – Otherwise it's that thing, [Name 030] (unintelligible) I think one more day, because removing those two windows from there the armored (blindados) ones is a real pain in the ass you know. And then the other thing is to attach them, it takes a shitload of material that's why it comes out cheap but it's worth it, rather it comes out cheap. [Name 241] said – Aha no no if he told me that it was going to be that, he better take charge of sending them, that you just (unintelligible) but then- Subject asked – He stores them. [Name 241] said – Ah. Subject said – He stores them, he. [Name 241] said – No, that you get them stored and all that. That he just asks that they be sent to him from there, he says that surely that comes by land, they are going to send them. Subject said – Okay then just let him tell me so I can give him our details so that he, he. [Name 241] said – Yes, send me the details, because he told me yes, that by plane how would it be, that if not tell the people to send them by plane. Subject said – I mean you saw the company it says there Cropa. [Name 241] said – Aha. Subject said – A Cropa card, you tell me and I call Cropa, look so-and-so they are going to drop a shipment there for me, send it to me. [Name 241] said – But who is Cropa. Subject said – Cropa is a company there in Guatemala. [Name 241] said – That is in charge of sending here. Subject said – Aha and they know how to do all the paperwork both overland and air, okay you tell me and I talk to Cropa, I tell them okay [Name 030], Cropa is asking me for the invoice this, send me the shipment or rather they will come pick it up and they come to pick it up, they pick it up, bam, they send it to me, okay [Name 030] the shipment is already here man, you have to pay so much in taxes deposit it to such an account and go. [Name 241] said – It's called Cropa. Subject said – Cropa, yes exactly. [Name 241] said – I don't know what the tangle is that he says is that they send it to him, they only asked him for that, the license for that thing and that's it. Subject said – I'm going to send you the corporate identity (cédula jurídica) number for armoring (blindaje), it's that man, [Name 238] what happens man, from experience I know that they have brought shit from Guatemala that has been a mess from Guatemala, I would recommend to this guy, that if he wants to have that quickly and not have so many problems, man, do it through Cropa who already has the experience and they know, they know how the thing is done. [Name 241] said – Through Cropa. Subject said - Cropa yes, there in the photos that I sent you yesterday. [Name 241] said – What would he have to do, supposing that there in Guatemala they come and drop that off there. Subject said – Man here I have the invoice, okay where is the merchandise, I call Cropa, look man I need you to go to such a place in Guatemala, pick up that shipment for me, they deliver the invoice to them, send it to me to Costa Rica either by air or land, they handle both and that's the whole thing. And Cropa. [Name 241] said The man is not here, he's coming until Thursday. Better that he is here and hears you better so he can talk. Subject said – Yes yes man exactly, because Cropa and imagine that the factory is large there, I called and asked him what documents were requested from these guys. I don't know what needs to be done, they send it all to him, Cropa takes care of doing all the documents. [Name 241] said – Okay okay I'm going to tell him better when he comes to see what he says. Subject said – Tell him to call me directly and I'll explain to him, all good. [Name 241] said – Alright, okay good\" (…); it is evidenced that the organization was indeed accessing the use of this type of armored security glass, which corresponds to what was argued in Report No. 25-SLC-CI-20 AMP I C INV 63-19, in addition to that according to Report No. 10-SLC-R-22 and its extension AMP I, C PA 15-21\" (cf. pp. 827 to 828 of the judgment). Precisely due to the weight of these antecedents, regarding the knowledge of [Name 030] of the criminal activities of the organization and above all, of the role played by [Name 001], it was necessary to outline them, because it is from there that the money with which various high-value goods were acquired proceeds. In that sense, the lower court (a quo) ruled out that the accused had other lawful sources of income to justify the acquisition of the goods that were identified during the investigation period. It is now appropriate to verify what is indicated in the judgment, in the section \"Facts that relate to [Name 030] and [Name 019]\", where a more concrete analysis was carried out on the following imputed facts: \"5.4 In the period between the month of January of the year 2018 and until October 13 of the year 2020, the accused [Name 001] appointed the accused [Name 030] alias \"[Name 241]\" in order for him to carry out the actions necessary for the acquisition of goods of high economic value, this with money derived from the illicit commerce of narcotics (estupefacientes), likewise the recruitment of third persons who would facilitate their name and identity was delegated to [Name 030] to register vehicles and goods in their name and thus conceal the illicit origin, goods that were intended for the use and enjoyment of the accused [Name 001] and other members of the criminal group […] 5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of goods acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030], carried out the necessary steps for the purchase and registry of the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this good at the agency Purdy Motor S.A for the sum of ¢44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was assigned by the criminal group, for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001]\" (cf. pp. 298 to 299 of the judgment).\n\nBased on the statement of the judicial investigator [Name 225], of the experts Rodrigo Chaves Calvo and Elizabeth Segura González from the Specialized Office against Organized Crime, as well as police report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 dated April 22, 2022 (cf. ff. 3735 to 3758), the *a quo* reconstructed the manner in which the vehicle, make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 125], was obtained. It was established that the vehicle was acquired by [Name 030] and [Name 019] from the agency Purdy Motor S. A. for the sum of ₡ 44,272,000.00. A part of the vehicle was paid for in cash, specifically $26,000 —$4,000 for a down payment (prima)— and $24,000 for the receipt of a vehicle. The connection that the *a quo* makes between [Name 030] and the acquisition of the asset lies in the fact that, according to the file from the agency Purdy Motors, seized in the present matter, it is detailed that it was he who first reserved the vehicle and provided the initial payment for those purposes: \"*according to invoice No. 1006462, of March 16, 2018, Mr. [Name 030], made the payment in cash of ONE THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS ($1,000.00), noting the legend 'reservation (separación) new VH EXPO', that is to say, on March 16, 2018, [Name 030] attended the Expo móvil and reserved or set aside said vehicle, prior to which he had made the deposit as recorded on folio No. 06. Invoice No. 1006187, of March 11, 2018, where Mr. [Name 030] made the payment in cash of ONE THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS ($1,000.00)*\" (cf. f. 846 of the judgment). Furthermore, there is proof that [Name 030] transferred this and another advance payment to the benefit of [Name 019] for the purchase of the motor vehicle of interest: \"*Folio No. 18. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26734, of July 5, 2019, with advance No. EXP-00007989, where client [Name 030], transferred the advance to [Name 019], for the sum of ONE THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS ($1,000.00). Folio No. 20. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26713, without a date record, with advance No. PCO-00597833 and EXP-00008265, where client [Name 030], transferred the advance to [Name 019], the sum of SIX THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS ($6,000.00)*\" (cf. f. 847 of the judgment). Similarly, [Name 033], wife of [Name 030], also made the transfer of a sum of $23,000 to the benefit of [Name 019], which corresponds to the amount at which the vehicle, make Volkswagen, style Jetta MK6, 2016 model, color white, license plate [Value 126], was received as part of the payment. All this information was extracted from the extension of report 10-SLC-R-2-CPA-15-21 (cf. ff. 3764 to 3792 of the main file), as well as from the statement given at trial by officials of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial). On this point, the trial court aptly concluded: \"*analyzing the statements of the judicial officials as well as the reports from the Capital Legitimization Section (Sección de Legitimación de Capitales), one can perfectly conclude with a degree of certainty that, regarding the acquisition of the vehicle with plates [Value 031], the accused [Name 030], to conceal the illicit origin of the money, carried out the necessary steps for the purchase and registry inscription of the vehicle, make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TXL, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019])*\" (cf. f. 746 of the judgment). In the opinion of this Chamber, it would not be feasible to reach a different conclusion, as proposed by the appellants, because to the foregoing is added that the investigation carried out by the Judicial Investigation Organization ruled out that ([Name 019]) had an economic profile that would allow him to obtain an asset of such high value; hence, the transfer of the cash advances made to his benefit by [Name 030] also lacks a reasonable explanation. The defendant [Name 019] made several cash payments, for amounts of $4,500, $6,000, $5,000, and $3,000, without there being any justification for him to handle those sums of money, which is consistent with the function of a front man (testaferro), who is limited solely to lending his name to represent another in a business, transaction, or activity. In this context, it then makes sense that the vehicle was reserved by [Name 030] and that he made the initial payment, but chose to have it registered under a third party's name and therefore transferred those advances to his name. To the foregoing is added that ([Name 019]) was linked to the acquisition of another motor vehicle, specifically the make BMW, style X-5, license plate [Value 127], which was ultimately registered under the name of the accused ([Name 016]), evidencing that the intervention of [Name 019] was not accidental, as the defense intends to portray, claiming that [Name 030] was doing the subject a favor, since the truth is that he was a member of the structure who precisely had the function of assisting in the acquisition of assets, to dilute the trace of the illicit nature of the money with which they were obtained. In the case of [Name 030], although he does have a history of lawful remunerative activities, these also do not justify the acquisition of an asset of the value of the one at hand, which, it is worth highlighting, was not the only one of that nature with which he was associated. By analyzing the manner in which the motor vehicle was acquired, which was reserved by [Name 030], who, as already indicated, transferred various sums of money to the benefit of [Name 019], it is also possible to establish the direct connection of said subject with the legal transaction (negocio jurídico), as he was the person who brokered it.\n\nThe trial court (a quo) also established that the motor vehicle was used by [Nombre 001]: \"The use and enjoyment of the vehicle license plate [Valor 031] by ([Nombre 001]) is more than accredited; for example, on December 3, 2018, at around 8:46 p.m., he was approached by Public Force officers while driving said vehicle, in sequence 0255028, talking with [Nombre 312] from intercepted telephone [Valor 097], at 8:46 p.m. on December 3, 2018 '…[Nombre 001] said – the GAO the police, I'm alone in my car they're on motorcycles behind me…'. Likewise, in the excerpt '…[Nombre 001] said – no I'm alone in my car, they already searched the whole car…', he similarly reiterates the scenario where he confirms he is escorted in the vehicle he owns '…[Nombre 001] said – no no I'm driving my car, they already checked my license and one cop who checked me said everything's thirty-three but I don't know you know they're probably going to screw me over and stuff…', '…[Nombre 001] said – it's just that look I'm talking because I'm in my car…' and finally the excerpt where he indicates, '…I'm driving my car surely pure foolishness as always jeez I haven't done anything…' a situation that confirms he was driving a vehicle he owns, heading to a nearby police station. The foregoing is recorded in O.I.J. reports that have already been amply analyzed, but furthermore the actions of the Public Force were recorded in the Logbook (Libro de Novedades) of the Tibás Police Station, on folio 125, dated December 3, 2018, in numbered lines 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 27, 28 and 29, where the police officers note the events and situations of interest requiring their intervention, and the collaboration of other police forces, regarding the incident that occurred at 9:00 p.m.; for the foregoing, the detained vehicle was identified, which corresponds to a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX-L, year 2018, brown color, which is registered before the National Registry of Property, in the name of [Nombre 019], identity card [Valor 007], alias \"[Nombre 240]\". (see report 25-SLC-CI-20). Subsequently in April 2019, in call sequence 0002957 it is noted that: '…[Nombre 083] said – no no, the Fortuner, subject said – no man, I'm already out of that- [Nombre 083] said – yes dammit he said he sent you dammit, not the Prado but the Fortuner, that he says that he told him I don't know what, that then, well I don't know what the deal is but he says he sent you, subject said – no dammit the one that is in my name is the other one……subject said – no dammit the one I've always gone to pay for and was involved in everything with was the one I gave you the papers for…'. Note how [Nombre 029] reveals the use and enjoyment of vehicles such as Prado and Fortunner by [Nombre 001] which are not in his name\" (cf. pp. 848 to 849 of the judgment). As another relevant aspect, the trial court's decision also considered that after the raids and arrests were executed in this case, while [Nombre 019] was deprived of liberty, the transfer of the motor vehicle to a third party was carried out, which constitutes an additional indication of the intent of the investigated parties to divert the organization's assets. For these purposes, the trial court (a quo) took into consideration the statement of the Judicial Investigation Organization officers and report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 dated April 22, 2022, according to which: \"5.1.5. [Nombre 030], alias \"[Nombre 241]\", fully identified in report 25-SLC-CI-20, during the study period is not registered as an 'Employee' or 'Employer' with the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social). 5.1.5.1 Tax Information. [Nombre 030] is registered with the Ministry of Finance in the economic activity of 'MARKETING AND SALES ADVISORS', reports his Net Income for the periods 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 the sum of SEVENTEEN MILLION SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND THIRTY-EIGHT COLONES (₵17,666,038.00), as detailed below in Table No.7: ..[…]..It should be noted that a query was made on the public website of the College of Economic Sciences Professionals to verify that [Nombre 030] is incorporated in that institution, as a Marketing professional, however, no positive results were found, a situation that contradicts the justification presented before the tax authorities, where he indicates that his income comes from his activity as a specialist in the area of Marketing and Sales\" (cf. p. 842 of the judgment). In addition to the foregoing, during the investigation period the judicial police were able to determine that the motor vehicle acquired by ([Nombre 019]), through the intermediation of [Nombre 030], was used by [Nombre 001]. Furthermore, similar movements were detected, which could not be included within the proven facts because they were outside the investigation periods, but which contribute to [Nombre 030]'s modus operandi of using third parties for the acquisition of assets, with illicit capital. Based on the entire account provided, this Chamber concludes that, indeed, the only possible conclusion to derive is that [Nombre 030] formed part of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001], mainly dedicated to drug trafficking, an activity with which a significant flow of money was generated that was later used for the acquisition of high-value assets. Within the criminal dynamic, [Nombre 030] had an active role in various roles, but of interest to respond to the complaints, the role of recruiting third parties to lend their names for the registration of personal property intended for the use and enjoyment of the organization stands out, thereby managing to dilute the trace of the illicit origin of the money. It is not true, as the appellants state, that what exists is a mere suspicion, because the criminal activity was reliably verified based on all the indications described above, which, analyzed jointly and in concatenation, effectively lead to deriving the criminal participation of [Nombre 030] in the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) that was attributed to him in the accusation. In that sense, it was held as proven that [Nombre 029] carried out deliveries of drugs to other criminal organizations and that, for each kilogram of cocaine delivered, which in coded language was called \"baby\", a consideration of approximately ₡ 5,100,000 was obtained, which constitutes the source of the illicit capital. Regarding the expert report provided by the defense, the trial court (a quo) discounted its value, considering that the study was biased and incomplete, because it only adjusted to what the party wanted it to indicate, but without true evidentiary support: \"However, despite the fact that the court has been certain regarding the criminal commission by the accused [Nombre 030] in the crimes credited to him, we will refer to the evidence provided by his technical defense, corresponding to an accounting expert report, prepared by Mr.\n\n...in that expert report, the public accountant informed, which consisted of examining the accused's income and its origin, in addition to contradicting what was reported by the experts of the Section for the Legitimization of Capital (Sección de Legitimación de Capitales) number 25-SLC-CI-20 and its amplifications, as well as the expert opinion DC:202000745-ING. In that line of analysis, what the court observes are some inconsistencies that, beyond what was attempted to be indicated in said expert report, are contradicted by what was reported by the experts and investigators of the Section for the Legitimization of Capitales; the first thing is that the party-appointed expert gives a report based on what the interested party provides him, so the conclusions he reaches will be in accordance with that, hence the court is already surprised that, if the expert, knowing the professional standards governing the field of public accounting in Costa Rica, including circular N.° 32-2022: “International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000”, and circular N.° 16 on the issuance of a certification report 2016-22-R, published by the Colegio de Contadores Públicos de Costa Rica, allows himself to issue subjective considerations regarding the contribution made by the Section for the Legitimization of Capitales with its experts, because his job is not to question whether the police consider that the economic activities of [Name 030] are or are not a front to account for his income from the criminal activity associated with [Name 001], that is to say, it is not for him to indicate whether the income is illicit or not, since what was indicated is based on the findings of the analysis of the entirety of the evidence, with the scopes that that same audit allowed them to conclude in the manner referred to in report 25-SLC-CI-20 and its amplifications; hence the objectivity of the accountant's analysis will be limited to accounting for the documents provided by his client, since it would be the same to make an assessment of that expert report when we ask ourselves if that rental activity reported by the accused corresponds to the veracity of his business activity as a merchant, as the accused [Name 030] came to report in the debate when stating: “by profession a merchant, security operations manager with an income of 2,260,000 colones per month”; the court from the outset wonders why the contributed expert report does not coincide with what was referred to by the accused, and even more so, it does not develop in it regarding the activity carried out by the accused, which includes being the operations manager of a security company, but which in the accounting report is said to be a Marketing and Sales Advisor, and that he does it independently, but as indicated, the accused stated he was the manager of a security company, which the court corroborated that according to the evidence provided by Mrs. [Name 033], indeed there are a large number of invoices for professional services income of the accused associated with the activity of the company “Emsevipri empresa de seguridad y vigilancia privada sociedad anónima”, (visible on folio 842 of the Evidence File Volume II), hence it is extremely surprising how it could indeed be said that the activity with net income does justify expenses and income, but the documentation justifying the same has not been contributed to the case file, we refer to a list of suppliers, payrolls, CCSS reports, not just invoicing, because precisely that is what constitutes contributions to the legitimization of capital, in which an attempt is made to justify income but which ultimately do not constitute a true robust income declaration capable of providing the respective legitimacy to the commercial activities, such as the inconsistency that the report says that the gross income reported to the Ministerio de Hacienda in the period from 2018 to 2020 totals 169,661,197.00 colones and 9,000,000.00 colones from the fiscal period of 2019 and the accused states that he is a salaried employee as we will see with the same evidence provided by him; therefore, the contributed expert report in no way constitutes a comprehensive analysis of the evidence reproduced in the debate, which ultimately the defense was unable to dismantle, since indeed the party-appointed expert report supports the petitioner's claim, it analyzes documents that should not enter to debate those contributed by the judicial authority, because from an objective point of view its contribution loses quality” [sic] (cf. pp. 854 to 856 of the judgment). As the trial court rightly points out, the study conducted presents inconsistencies with the evidence gathered by the judicial police. Note that the authorities carried out a background study of [Name 030] in government institutions in order to establish whether he had legitimate remunerative activities, obtaining data that are not consistent with his real economic profile. The private expert report, as the trial court aptly stated, was limited to a specific object intended by the defense, which was to justify the existence of a legitimate economic activity of the accused; however, in light of the prosecution's evidence and its forcefulness, it is clear that it is insufficient to establish a reasonable doubt and even contradictory to the evidence collected by the judicial police from various state institutions, hence this Chamber derives no error in the assessment made by the a quo. In the trial, the defense counsel presented as their theory of the case that the money used for the acquisition of the motor vehicle came from a family security business and a transportation business that he maintained together with his wife. That hypothesis was rejected by the trial court, without any deficiency being noted in the analysis. It is important to point out, as a first aspect, that the trial court held as true that the defendant had a legitimate remunerative activity, because on this angle evidence was indeed gathered. What was not accepted is that this was the source of the money with which the motor vehicle was acquired, because all the evidence gathered points to its illicit origin, insofar as [Name 030] was an active member of the criminal organization, who had constant and direct contact with its leader [Name 001], to whom he provided security and protection services; he was also linked to [Name 029], who on behalf of the criminal group made drug deliveries to other organizations and received the corresponding payments, which he later converted into foreign currency through third parties; moreover, for the acquisition of the motor vehicle he sought the help of a third party, who was employed by the organization as a front person (testaferro); in addition to the fact that the economic profile of [Name 030] was not consistent with the movements observed during the investigation period, because although the judgment only deemed his intervention in the acquisition of the vehicle with license plate [Value 031] as proven, it was not the only one he was linked to. The private expert report attempted to support the accused's income with a legitimate activity for which scarce data was provided to reliably justify it, which is why it was given less credibility, without any irregularity being determined in the analysis. The trial court even went further and also considered evidence related to the economic profile of [Name 033], wife of [Name 030], who appeared as a defendant in this case, but was acquitted because the charges against her were not correctly filed: “to exemplify the aforementioned, the accountant stated: ‘It should be noted that the study presents an inconsistency given that the vehicle with license plate [Value 128], a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX, for a value of ₡22,730,000.00 is attributed to Mr. [Name 030], and his partner, Mrs. [Name 033] holder of identity card number [Value 013], if it is to be taken as Family assets, the income of Mrs. [Name 033], for a total amount of $148,698,210.00, should have been included within the study’; but what is held in the investigation regarding this motor vehicle, specifically in the defense's expert report the vehicle with license plate [Value 128], a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX is mentioned, however, from the comprehensive findings of the evidence, it is clearly established that for the purchase of that vehicle, apart from the cash contribution, another vehicle was given as a form of payment, being the BMW brand with license plate [Value 129]; the Section for the Legitimization of Capitales reports in its Report N° 25-SLC-CI-20 C INV 63-19 regarding the Toyota Prado: “it was acquired at twelve hours and ten minutes on the seventeenth of May of two thousand nineteen, as recorded in the digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 199] where one of the deeds that individualize the sale of the asset, [Name 242], holder of identity card number [Value 130], appeared in his capacity as generalísimo proxy, limited to the sum of fifty million colones, and with sufficient powers for this act, of the company called PURDY MOTOR S.A., with legal identification number [Value 200], and on the other hand, Mrs. [Name 033], holder of identity card number [Value 151], a nurse, where in said deed she acquires the lien-free Toyota vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado TX style, black color, chassis JTEBH9FJ5KK207511, for the sum received of thirty-eight million two hundred forty-five thousand ninety colones, the new unregistered vehicle. Payments made by bank deposit from Banco Davivienda, made on the eighth of May of two thousand nineteen, for an amount of six thousand dollars, cash payment for an amount of nine thousand dollars, bank financing from CARROFACIL DE COSTA RICA for an amount of twenty-seven thousand dollars, funds that originate from (Savings, Loan, delivery of previous vehicle).\n\nIn view of the clear information, where it was observed that the deed through which the vehicle with license plate [Valor 128] was acquired was signed on May 17, 2019, and together with the information from sequence **03312922**, where [Nombre 030] alias “[Nombre 241]” states in the excerpts **“…[Nombre 241] said – deliver it, I mean sell it to hand over that cash, it’s going to be more of a hassle and that’s it, it’s set for tomorrow at one, even that, you asshole…”** **“but we’re set for tomorrow, you asshole”** referring to the fact that the business of acquiring the vehicle would be made effective the day after the phone call, dated May 16, 2019, an event that fits perfectly with the acquisition of the vehicle Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX, year 2019, license plate [Valor 128], acquired on May 17, 2019 (1 day after the call). In the same vein, excerpts are also observed in the aforementioned sequence, numbered **03312922**, where alias “[Nombre 241]” reflects the knowledge he has regarding money laundering or Legitimación de Capitales, evidencing the experience acquired and what is established by the controls that financial institutions have, when depositing cash and the justifications they request for the origin of the money, shown in the following excerpts acquired through the tool of telephone intervention **“…[Nombre 241] said – say it’s no because, imagine, for me to hand over that dough, besides that car is not in my name, it’s going to be more of a hassle…”** or also in the excerpt where he mentions **“…[Nombre 241] said – no, but understand, so that you understand me, the car is not in my name so when I grab that cash, imagine, for me to deposit that cash, from now until tomorrow I can’t, I’ll never be able to, you understand me?, subject said – haa it’s because it’s not in your name, [Nombre 241] said – no, so for me to deposit that cash at Toyota they’re going to ask me, well imagine, it’s going to be a hassle, in the sense that, well, where did I get it and that stuff, so I sold a car but the car is not in my name…”** and finally in the excerpt **“…[Nombre 241] said – right now I’m actually better off delivering the car because any issue, well, you’re delivering a car, nothing happens there, it’s not the same as depositing the cash all at once, subject said – mmm yeah yeah yeah yeah, [Nombre 241] said – if it had been earlier yes, because it gives me a chance to deposit the cash in chunks, but we’re set for tomorrow, you asshole, just like everything, when you’re going to do something someone always shows up…”**; the aforementioned finding establishes that, indeed, for that vehicle the accused [Nombre 030] contributed the BMW motor vehicle, plate [Valor 131], as a form of payment, but the absolutely clear relationship is that it would give him away if he had to give its nominal value in cash, because he knows that it is a way in which they would give him traceability (since the dealership has the duty to report the suspicious transaction report), known as “STR” (“ROS”), and that indeed the motor vehicle was put in his wife’s name, but then we see that in the years 2018 and 2019 [Nombre 030] made the respective payment of the road tax (marchamo) for that BMW vehicle, from which it is unfailingly determined that he had acquired it from another person who was collaborating with him and that this was [Nombre 243], who acquired the vehicle in his name, with the judicial police highlighting that in the period during which he was the legal owner (48 calendar days) and the purchase value (USD $65,000) against the sale (₡ 17,640,000), this does not correspond to commercial logic, so then, indeed, it is a clear way of establishing that the acquired assets had an irregular form of payment typical of capitalization actions (acciones de la legitimación de capitales), thus the concealment of the rights to the asset occurred, diverting attention and distracting the authorities from the true person who provided the money for the purchase, thereby causing a distortion of the socioeconomic order, because control over the assets that people hold is lost, although it must be clarified that everything referred to in relation to the vehicle [Valor 132] was not charged (because the prosecutorial body so decided), but the court has the duty to analyze what is stated in the accounting report; therefore, the court cannot give forcefulness to the expert opinion of the indicated accountant, because it is clearly established that there was partiality or subjective analysis, since the accountant only tried to give an appearance of family assets (patrimonio familiar) to that vehicle, but despite having the referred report, he limited himself to making an inaccurate conclusion; in that same line of argument, the experts from the Sección de Legitimación de Capitales were forceful in indicating that [Nombre 030] was a person dedicated to legitimación de capitales as referred to above in this same section of its reasoning, we can even see that the technical defense presented evidence at trial on October 3, 2024, when the lawyer Lic. Simón Angulo offered as evidence a precautionary measures hearing, which was located by the court, which is an electricity bill and an employment letter, to accredit his ties to the community at that time, of importance is that it refers to his work, specifically to a certificate issued by [Nombre 247], which certifies that the accused [Nombre 030] works for the security company ENSEVIPRI S.A., regarding which it is important to establish the following, said company and its representative have been named in the debate, both by documentary evidence and even by the leader of the criminal structure [Nombre 001], the first thing is that the representative is the brother-in-law of the defendant [Nombre 030], but also as we have been referring to in police report IP-094-EN20, it was established through surveillance, that they observed on different occasions the vehicles Toyota Land Cruiser Prado, license plate [Valor 128], Toyota Land Cruiser Prado, license plate [Valor 070] (the same one that [Nombre 010] was driving when he transported [Nombre 001] to CAI Vilma Curlin Rivera; with that last vehicle being found at the home of [Nombre 001] on the day of the raids, in use and at the disposal of the criminal organization, and the experts from the Sección de Legitimación de Capitales in their report No. 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21, refer that the owner is a corporation (sociedad anónima) named Vanguard Cleaning RC Sociedad Anónima, legal ID [Valor 201], the legal representation is held by [Nombre 246], this being the wife of Mr. [Nombre 247], who offers that employment certification from the company “Emsevipri empresa de seguridad y vigilancia privada sociedad anónima”, and if one observes, in the board of directors appointments of that company, Mrs. [Nombre 246] appears as treasurer, the same person who holds the legal representation of the company that owns the vehicle [Valor 152], which was found in the house of the accused [Nombre 001], leader of the criminal organization, coupled with the fact that what was stated by the accused [Nombre 248] is not consistent with that letter or employment certification, because it says that: “he works for our company providing supervision and sales coordination services for our represented company, capturing new clients since December 5, 2013”, however, the defendant said he was the security operations manager; so for the court, the comprehensive analysis of the evidence allows it to forcefully infer that the actions and businesses of the accused [Nombre 030] are arranged to be part of the criminal structure of [Nombre 001] and that the expert findings are decisive and have not been contradicted by the accounting report and the evidence provided by the defense» [sic] (cf. pp. 856 to 860 of the judgment). From the previous excerpt it is obtained that even the trial court derived from the evidence the acquisition of another vehicle in which the wife of [Nombre 030] intervened and the asset ended up in the use of members of the criminal organization, which again allows reaffirming the modus operandi for the acquisition of assets and concealment of their trail. In the opinion of this Chamber, as already indicated, the prosecution's evidence was sufficiently clear and conclusive to derive the criminal responsibility of the defendant [Nombre 030] in the acts for which he was charged, hence the defense evidence was insufficient to refute that conclusion. It is recalled here that a significant number of telephone communications were considered in which the accused [Nombre 030] negotiated motor vehicles, both heavy and light, therefore the acquisition of the Toyota vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Valor 031], was not the only event of that nature that was verified during the investigation period. Even in the communication at 13:08 hours on May 16, 2019, with sequence number 03312922, [Nombre 030] spoke with a third party about the acquisition of a vehicle and the difficulties presented by the fact that the asset that would be part of the payment was not in his name and therefore he could not justify the funds, which confirms the recurrence of actions of that nature and which was assessed in that same sense in the judgment. Although as part of the payment for the movable property (bien mueble), the Volkswagen vehicle, plate [Valor 114], was delivered, this circumstance is in no way sufficient to falsify the conclusion reached by the a quo regarding the illicit origin of the assets. For, as already indicated, these types of actions were part of the defendant's modus operandi to achieve the mobilization of illicit capital. Furthermore, even if the partial payment of the vehicle through the receipt of the Volkswagen motor vehicle were set aside, the rest of the capital paid finds no justification in a lawful source of [Nombre 030], nor of ([Nombre 019]); rather, based on the circumstantial evidence and the behavior of the defendant, it can be directly related to the illicit activity.\n\nIt is recalled once again that the motor vehicle was used by [Name 001], regarding whom [Name 030] displayed an attitude of servility and submission, which is consistent with the reconstruction of events carried out, in which he was placed as the leader of the narco gang and [Name 030] as one of its subordinate subjects. As already stated, [Name 030]'s actions under the orders of [Name 001] are evident in the negotiation for the armored windshield transcribed above, in which [Name 030] tells his interlocutor that he must consult with \"el mae\" on the terms of the agreement. It is clear that, in a criminal organization with a certain level of complexity, such as this one, the leader assigns general functions or terms of action to his subordinates, so it is impossible to require—as the appellants do—the evidentiary support of the corresponding order for each of the movements and transactions carried out by the members of the organization—and specifically [Name 030]—under the general mandate assigned to them. In this matter, it has been established at an evidentiary level that [Name 030] followed the orders of [Name 001] for the insertion of profits illegally obtained through drug trafficking into the formal economy, using for this, among other mechanisms, the purchase of luxury vehicles. Based on all the foregoing, it is therefore determined that, contrary to what was alleged by the appellants, the objective and subjective elements of the criminal type of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) do emerge from the trial court's judgment. The defendant [Name 030] carried out actions directed at the acquisition of the vehicle, as he was the one who reserved it at the dealership and made the initial payment; later, in order to hide the trail of the money with which it was obtained, he enlisted the help of a third party for its registration in the Public Registry. Furthermore, his knowledge of the illicit origin of the money is undeniable, as he was an active member of the criminal organization, performing specific functions within it, including the recruitment of frontmen (testaferros), precisely to be able to dilute any trace of the illicit origin of the money with which they were acquired. In fact, as already indicated, the trial court considered it feasible to also attribute criminal liability to him for the crime of drug trafficking, which constitutes the predicate offense to the activity of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), a conviction that was not upheld due to an issue of imputation, not evidence. In this regard, this Chamber reiterates the ruling No. 2005-499 of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, issued at 10:47 hours on June 2, 2005, which stated: \"*In the case of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), the objective element is the disposition of economic resources, with the aim of hiding their origin, and its subjective part requires knowledge that the economic values come from drug trafficking activity. Consequently, what the legislator did was convert money laundering (legitimación de capitales), which in some cases could be a form of secondary participation, into an independent criminal type from drug trafficking itself*,\" aspects that derive from the circumstantial evidence presented as has been extensively explained throughout this pronouncement. Based on the circumstances set forth, this Tribunal considers that the complaints of the defense do not concur and that, for this reason, upon verifying no defect in the intellectual reasoning of the judgment, as it pertains to the criminal liability of [Name 030] in the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), what is appropriate is the declaration **without merit** (*sin lugar*) of the claims filed by the technical and material defense.\n\n**XXV. Sixth objection raised by Dr. Badilla Villanueva in favor of [Name 030].** Claims \"** *Lack of reasoning for the sentence in terms of articles 71 of the Penal Code, 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code* **.\" Attorney Badilla Villanueva argues that a sentence of 15 years in prison was imposed on his client for each of the offenses, due to \"*the excesses in the commission of the crime*\" (cf. f. 7281), a criterion that seems to be based – for drug trafficking – on the visits of third parties attributed to having the purpose of carrying out logistics tasks, while in the case of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), it would find support in \"*being the leader's trusted man, being part of a criminal structure of 13 people, evidencing that he did not receive orders, holding meetings at his house, and affecting the socioeconomic order*\" (f. 7281). He argues that the objective and subjective elements of the punishable act were not analyzed, nor the condition of the accused's clean record, nor the goal of positive special prevention assigned to the penalty in our legal system. He explains that, regarding the commercialization of drugs, [Name 030] was only charged with one drug transport, in which it was not even possible to determine what type of substance it was, and regarding money laundering (legitimación de capitales), he alleges that the accused did not end up paying the entire price and also did not register it in his name, so his participation in the purchase of the automobile is only residual. In view of the above, he believes there is grievance by virtue of the sanctions being irrational, as it is feasible to set the minimum end of the sentence. He requests that the ground be accepted and that a remand be ordered for a new substantiation. **Fourth ground of the appeal against judgment filed by co-defendant [Name 030].** Refers to \"** *Non-observance of articles 71 of the Penal Code and 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for setting sanctions much higher than the minimum ends, through reasoning far removed from what is established in the procedural norms* **.\" The accused argues that the imposition of 15 years in prison for each of the offenses in material concurrence for which he was convicted —drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales)— was erroneously reasoned. After partially transcribing the reasons indicated in the seventh section of the judgment under appeal (cf. fs. 7397-7398), he explains that the amount imposed is based on the same reasons alleged to support his participation in the illicit act of drug trafficking; in particular, he is sanctioned for being considered to have assumed the role of \"sub-leader\" of the criminal grouping, because it was not proven that he \"received orders from any leader of any organization\" (cf. f. 7398). He points out that, on the contrary, said argument should have been used in his favor, to demonstrate that he had no links with any member of the alleged organization. Another of the reasons used to increase the sentence consists of affirming that he used his home for criminal meetings, despite the fact that he only received visits from friends and acquaintances and that \"*there is not a single piece of evidence in the file that showed the conversations or topics discussed with my visitors in my home*\" (f. 7398). The appellant also considers it invalid that he be sanctioned more severely for having explored, as a business possibility, the importation of armor-plated windshields from Guatemala. He indicates that his age and family ties, which should have been weighed in his favor as positive aspects, are rather reproached, by affirming that they did not serve as a deterrent to prevent him from committing the crime. He further states that the reasoning for the penalty for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is a reiteration of the same reasons used to set against him 15 years in prison for the crime of drug trafficking, without there being \"*an individual analysis of each conduct based on its specific modal circumstances*\" (f. 7399). After transcribing the argumentation under which the penalty for the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was justified (cf. fs. 7399-7401), the material defense insists on the non-existence of efforts to adjust the *quantum* of the penalty to the parameters established in Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He alleges that the 30 years of prison imposed practically amount to a life sentence, having been established for a person who is 43 years old, with a family and children, as he is. He points out, as a grievance, that the 30 years of prison imposed are disproportionate and stray from the re-socializing goal of the penalty and the guidelines provided for in Article 71 of the Penal Code. He requests that the objection be declared with merit and that a remand be ordered for a new discussion of the *quantum* of the penalty. **By majority, the claim is declared with merit.** By virtue of the revocation of the conviction imposed for the crime of drug trafficking, reference will only be made to the penalty imposed for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). As has been indicated in other sections of this pronouncement, the imposition of a penalty, especially those that deviate from the minimum end, requires rigorous, complete, and rational reasoning from the judging person. The foregoing so that the *ius puniendi* is exercised within limits of rationality and proportionality, allowing the sanctioned person, as well as the citizenry, to understand what the specific reproach is for the act committed. In this case, it is verified that the sanction imposed on the defendant for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) amounts to 15 years of imprisonment, that is, 5 years above the minimum end that could be imposed in accordance with numeral 69 of Law No. 8204, as it is a crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) from drug trafficking. However, it is observed that a large part of the grounds presented to justify the sanction allude to actions carried out by [Name 033], wife of the defendant, who, it is worth highlighting, was acquitted in the present summary proceedings. Criminal liability is strictly personal and in that sense, based on the fact that the penalty must be imposed based on the degree of reproach made to the accused person for their own acts, it would not be possible to demand from them or attribute to them actions carried out by a third party, unless they had somehow instrumentalized that person for an illicit purpose. In this case, that is not the circumstance expressed regarding Mrs. [Name 033], but rather the knowledge she had of the criminal activities of [Name 030] and that she received people who were part of the criminal organization at her home. These arguments give the impression that, not being able to sanction said defendant, her reproach is transferred to her husband, which cannot be accepted. Having removed these reasonings from the reasoning, this Chamber notes that the remaining outlined arguments are not sufficient to support a reproach as severe as the one that was finally made. The judgment focused on objective aspects related to the manner of commission of the crime, without adequately assessing the remaining topics contemplated in Article 71 of the Penal Code. It is even noted that the personal conditions of the accused were barely mentioned, without explaining in a clear and specific way the impact these had on the dosage of the sanction. By virtue of the foregoing, by majority, it is concluded that the reasoning for the penalty imposed on [Name 029] for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) does not satisfy the requirements of Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in relation to Article 71 of the Penal Code. Consequently, by majority, the claim is declared **with merit** (*con lugar*) and the sanction imposed for said offense is revoked. A remand trial is ordered, so that the trial court, with a different panel, proceeds to substantiate said matter again, with observance of the principle of non-reformation in pejus. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With accentuated respect, I separate myself from the decision of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare without merit the sixth ground of the appeal of the private defense of the defendant [Name 030], as well as the fourth ground of the appeal filed by the defendant in exercise of his material defense. Contrary to what the appellants affirm, whose main arguments were accepted by the majority vote, I consider that the judgment did adequately state the reasons for the sentence of fifteen years in prison, for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) committed by [Name 030].\n\nIn the eighth whereas clause, letter B of the decision, the *a quo* highlights that the conduct of [Name 030] exceeded the minimum legal reproach, for which it indicates that he was a person of great trust for the leader of the drug-trafficking organization, which it validly deduces from the following details: *a)* it was not frequent for him to receive orders, but rather he had a wide margin of action, *b)* many of the meetings of the narco network took place in his home and, *c)* he was in charge of the management for the purchase of a costly vehicle for the use and enjoyment of the gang leader. In my view, the tribunal's arguments certainly account for a higher degree of culpability, since the actions of [Name 030] denote that he had access to a large amount of money from drug trafficking, which is illustrated precisely by the purchase of the motor vehicle worth over forty million colones. In addition, his closeness to the leader, as well as the meetings held at his house, are certainly factors that place him in a very close and trusted position that, necessarily, must be reflected in the amount of the sanction for his conduct as a money launderer of capital from drug trafficking. The judgment also justifies the increase of five years above the legal minimum, based on the advisory services that [Name 030] provided to the ringleader of the narco structure, precisely regarding the handling of the money. These are conducts that present [Name 030] as a person who, regarding the legal interest – the economy in general and the socio-economic order in particular –, represented a more significant impact, since he had closeness and a very close bond of trust with the narco gang leader and, as indicated, he advised him and had access to a lot of money to proceed to \"launder\" it. Therefore, in my view, the increase in the sanction decided by the trial body was fair, proportional, and in accordance with the analysis of the particularities of the conduct of the convicted person [Name 030]. Therefore, my vote is to declare the sixth ground of appeal by [Name 030]'s private defense without merit, as well as the fourth ground of the appeal filed by the defendant in exercise of his material defense.-\n\n**XXVI. Third ground of appeal managed by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense.** Claims \"Disagreement with the obtaining of the evidence and the incorporation of what was obtained in the raid carried out against me for coming from an unfounded and therefore illegal judicial resolution.\" He states that the raid order issued in a resolution at 1:00 p.m. on October 5, 2020, considered only ambiguous indications that fail to comply with the parameters set by the Third Chamber in resolution No. 1408-2004, regarding the assessment of indiciary evidence. He indicates that those indications are not indicative of any crime, that no other investigative steps existed, and, therefore, the justification for raiding his home was based on two telephone calls, captured from third parties and in which it is unknown to what object they referred. He considers that the raid order for a money laundering crime was disproportionate and violated rational sound criticism, because it is unknown how the payment for the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado vehicle was made and in what way the colones were converted into dollars or if the acquisition was legitimate. He believes that in his case there was no proven indication of his participation in a criminal activity that would justify carrying out a raid on his home. Regarding the grievance, he explains that there was an arbitrary interference in his life, by carrying out a raid without meeting the legal and constitutional requirements necessary for that purpose. He requests that the ground be upheld, that the raid order be annulled and with it all the derived evidence; furthermore, that he be acquitted of the crime of drug trafficking. **The ground is declared without merit.** As indicated in whereas clause VIII of this pronouncement, which deals with analyzing the appropriateness and intellectual evidentiary support of the telephone interventions, the requirement for indications that prove criminal activity varies according to the phase in which the criminal process finds itself. The degree of evidentiary sufficiency necessary to issue a condemnatory judgment cannot be equated with that required to authorize an investigative act during the preparatory stage. In this initial phase, certainty about the criminal responsibility of the investigated person is not required, as this would render the authorization of steps that involve impacts on fundamental rights unnecessary and disproportionate. The foregoing is because the principle of proportionality requires that any interference with fundamental rights must be authorized only when no other less harmful means exist to achieve the procedural goal being pursued. Thus, when the guarantees judge is requested to order an investigative act that affects fundamental rights —such as the interception of communications or the raid of a dwelling— there must be reasonable evidentiary elements about the investigated person's participation in the criminal activity, consistent with the phase in which the process is found. Otherwise, if an evidential collection so high and robust is required that it demonstrates, without a doubt, the existence of an illicit activity, the preparatory stage would be distorted, as its purpose is precisely to collect evidence that allows clarifying the investigated fact, whether to confirm or rule it out. A disproportionate requirement would only lead to certain essential steps not being possible, to the detriment of criminal prosecution, without its counterpart being greater protection of the fundamental rights of the accused persons, but rather the impunity of those who decide to violate criminal regulations. In the case at hand, the defendant [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, questions the basis of the raid, registration, and seizure order that authorized entry to his home, because —in his view— there were not sufficient elements of evidence to justify the intrusion by the State. Having analyzed the questioned resolution, which corresponds to the one issued by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José at 1:00 p.m. on October 5, 2020 (cf. pp. 2108 to 2146), this Chamber considers that it has adequate reasoning and elements of evidence to support, with the sufficiency required for that procedural stage and the type of investigative step to be carried out, the existence of criminal activities by the investigated persons and, in particular, by the defendant [Name 019]. The judging person who issued the order took as a basis the statement of facts made by the Public Ministry, in which a criminal organization was described that, between April 2018 and October 2020, engaged in drug trafficking and the money laundering of capital proceeds from said activity. The role of each of the members of the criminal structure was described, as well as various transfer activities conducted with third parties. Subsequently, the resolution analyzes the pertinence of the requested measure, by determining that there must necessarily be sufficient indications of criminal activity and that the intended purpose cannot be achieved by other means, concluding that the investigation conducted and the information provided in the request were sufficient to deem both requirements fulfilled. It reviews the indications obtained for each of the accused persons and, in particular, with respect to [Name 019], it pointed out that the vehicle with license plate [Value 125] was in his name, despite its effective use by [Name 001], as verified from the intervention carried out by the GAO on December 3, 2018, when said subject was detained while driving the motor vehicle. Likewise, it added the existence of captured telephone communications, such as 0232185, 0326308, 0306135, 0317672, and 0159716, in which it was confirmed that [Name 001] was the one in charge of the use and enjoyment of the asset. It was considered that [Name 019] did not report a lawful economic activity that would justify the acquisition of the vehicle, whose value exceeded 40 million colones. The resolution describes that, as a result of the interception of communications, a link was determined between the defendant [Name 050] and a subject who answered to the alias \"[Name 240]\", preliminarily assigned to the indictee [Name 019] who, according to the prosecutorial theory, would be one of those in charge of carrying out drug sales to third parties, which was derived from sequences 0155185 and 0159716. Then, in a section dedicated exclusively to ([Name 019]), the resolution details the following recount of roles and indications: \"*A. Assistance with the storage, custody, and delivery of illicit substances. Among the calls that would prove said role are the following: 0208919 in which a subject named [Name 249] asks [Name 046] for 'two' and he tells him to go pick them up at '[Name 240]'s', the nickname by which [Name 019] is known. The reason why it is estimated that this communication very probably refers to the sale of narcotics is found in the section corresponding to [Name 046]. 0159716 in which the same pattern as the previous call is observed, but in which [Name 050] is the one who tells an unidentified subject to go to '[Name 240]'s' to take what he was going to pick up. As already indicated, it is known that ([Name 016]) is not a formal merchant, nor does he engage in any type of activity under which the pickup of a lawful product or merchandise is justified. Likewise, in call 0111004 ([Name 007]) again refers another subject to '[Name 240]'s' to pick up 'the thing'.*\"\n\n- 0029338 in which [Name 161] is shown concerned about a search and seizure operation being carried out by the Judicial Investigation Agency on one of the walkways of León XIII and in which [Name 161] calls a subject to find out if something is happening where \"[Name 240]\" is, and that other subject tells him that \"everything looks calm\" there. Evidently, if [Name 161] calls to ask about that house, it is because within it, evidence that compromises the criminal organization could be found. Likewise, there are communications linking [Name 019] with several of the persons who have been investigated in this case, such as, for example: 0313114 in which a woman calls [Name 010] and asks him where he is because they went looking for him at several places, including the home of «[Name 240]» and did not find him. It also stands out that another of the places searched was the house of \"[Name 136]\", alias by which the group's leader [Name 001] is known. 0317672 in which [Name 010] says he must go do something with \"[Name 240]\". Note that in that same communication [Name 010] states that \"[Name 136]\" invited them to eat at McDonald’s and that at the site ([Name 013]) was also present, who also asked him to watch over \"el fierro\" for him. - 0317672 in which [Name 161] calls a woman to tell her that several homes in León XIII were searched, including the house of \"[Name 240]\". - 0210711 in which an unidentified subject calls [Name 046] and asks him if he has a \"bicha\" of those to weigh \"unas tenis Nike\" that they are going to buy from them, to which [Name 046] suggests he ask “[Name 240]”. It should be noted that there is a high probability that this call refers to the sale of illicit substances, since it is clearly nonsensical to weigh sports shoes» (cfr. f. 2137 front and back of the investigation file). From the foregoing communications, it was possible to reasonably infer that the interlocutors were referring to the trafficking of illicit substances, through the use of coded language. The use of the alias «[Name 251]» is repeated, as one of the persons who were presumably carrying out the trade of those substances with third parties and, as already indicated, at a police level and preliminarily, that alias was linked to the accused [Name 019]. Precisely to corroborate all of this information, the judge who analyzed the prosecutorial request determined that the requirements of relevance, necessity, suitability, and proportionality of the investigative measure were met, in contrast to the required procedural purpose, which was the clarification of the investigated facts through the collection of new evidence. Consequently, the search of 14 properties linked to the investigated persons was ordered, including ([Name 019]), whose domicile was identified as objective number 12, with the following detail: «Dwelling 12 owned by the mother of ([Name 019]) located in [...]. Reason: ([Name 019]) has lent his dwelling for the storage of illicit substances. Regarding this, see calls 0208919, 0159716 and 0029338» (cfr. f. 2141 back of the investigation file). The resolution describes the evidence intended to be collected, the time and date for the execution of the measure, the persons authorized to participate in it, as well as the identification and signature of the judge who issued the ruling. Based on the considerations set forth, this Chamber finds that there is no defect to reproach in the aforementioned ruling. It is not true, as the material defense states, that the order considered only two telephone communications, because the truth is that it referred to several captures that, preliminarily, related him to other members of the criminal group and to the activity of drug trafficking. Regarding the illicit act of money laundering, the reasons why he was linked were also detailed, namely the acquisition of a vehicle of considerable value, despite not reporting any licit activity that would allow him to handle the sums of money necessary to acquire it, coupled with the fact that the vehicle was in use by the person identified as the gang's leader. It was unnecessary to determine how the accused converted the colones into dollars for the purchase of the vehicle, because the relevant fact was that the vehicle appeared in his name at the time of the events, without a licit justification existing. In summary, the body of evidence available was sufficient and suitable for ordering the search of the dwelling of the members of the criminal organization and in particular of ([Name 019]), which is why the complaints submitted for consideration are dismissed. Consequently, the third ground of the appeal filed by the defendant ([Name 019]) is declared without merit. \n\n - First ground of appeal managed by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense. Accuses «Disagreement with the assessment of the evidence regarding the crime of drug trafficking». Considers that the decision of the a quo to convict him based on telephone calls intercepted from third parties was erroneous. States that a telephone intervention was never ordered against him. Indicates that the error of the sentence is that it was not assessed whether the captured calls were sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Transcribes the content of the call captured at 12:38 hours on July 3, 2019, sequence 0208919, user [Value 134], then details that it does not meet the gravity, precision, and concordance required by the Third Chamber in vote no. 14082004. Argues that the evidence is not fully proven, because there is no certainty whether the meeting existed and an object was delivered. Maintains that the lack of corroboration means that only the intention to carry out an action exists, without any penalty being contemplated for such a scenario. Questions that a relationship of subordination of alias «[Name 251]» to [Name 046] was inferred and that what was transacted was a stash of drugs. Points out that as a result of that communication, no drugs were seized and it was not verified that the meeting took place. Asserts that using the call to conclude that he stored drugs implies an «extensive interpretation» of the evidence, in contravention of article 2 of the procedural code. Argues that, according to the sentence, materializations occurred in related cases, such as 19-000023-0622-PE, 19-014179-0042-PE and 19-000160-0622PE, which is useful only for those summary proceedings, but not for the facts charged against him. Asserts that he was sentenced without mentioning the existing evidence against him demonstrating drug trafficking activity, as there were no surveillances, sales to third parties, to collaborators, or other investigation strategies. Criticizes that the conviction was based on a single amphibological piece of evidence. Regarding the grievance, he highlights that he was convicted based on evidence that does not meet legal or constitutional requirements, nor those described by jurisprudence. Requests that the challenge be granted, the sentence annulled, and his release ordered. Fifth ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, in favor of the defendant ([Name 019]). Accuses «Insufficient evidence» regarding the illicit act of drug sales. Considers that the sentence contains no suitable evidence proving the materialization of drug sales by the accused [Name 019]. Notes that a seizure was carried out at his dwelling, but it was not proven that the drugs belonged to the defendant, since they were not found in his room or another dependency allowing attribution of ownership. Adds that the amount seized does not constitute evidence of commercial sale or possession for those purposes. Points out that no drug commercialization by the accused was proven. In the section called «Grievance» describes that the improper application of substantive law led to the imposition of a penalty on his client with the consequent loss of his ambulatory freedom. Requests that his client be acquitted and his release ordered, or failing that, that the sentence be annulled and a retrial ordered. By majority, the grounds are granted. The intellectual reasoning for the crime of drug trafficking attributed to the accused [Name 019], in the modalities of storage and sale, is found between folios 560 and 577 of the sentence, under the title «FACTS AGAINST [Name 046] (DECEASED) AND [Name 019]». However, taking into consideration that the sentence constitutes a logical unit, this Chamber did not limit itself to said section, but analyzed the entirety of the ruling, in order to verify if in other sections reference was made to the participation of the accused in activities related to drug trafficking. After examining the sentence, this Court concludes that the intellectual reasoning is insufficient to support the attribution of criminal liability made against the defendant [Name 019] for the aforementioned illicit act, insofar as the evidentiary analysis was lax and ambiguous. The facts attributed to the defendant and which the court considers constitutive of drug trafficking are the following: «1.- In the period between the months of April of the year 2018 to October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; zones in which they maintained under their control various properties for storage, distribution and sale of drugs, as well as for receipt of money proceeds from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: • The storage and dosing of the drug stashes acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of stashes to the various commercial sale points.\n\n• The sale of drug shipments belonging to the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory.\n• The sale of drug shipments belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug dependents, through the properties held by the organization for \"Bunker\"-type purposes, as well as on public roads in areas under the organization's control.\n• The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, employing various means to that end.\n3.- This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal fashion, so each of its members performed specific functions, all in a single direction: the sale of drugs and the protection of the group over the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following:\n[...]\n• [Nombre 019]: a member of the criminal group, his hierarchical rank within the group was to provide his collaboration to other high-ranking members of the criminal group, such as the accused [Nombre 046], in the storage and sale of drugs. Furthermore, his functionality as a front man was proven, by facilitating his name for the registration of high-value assets, property of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001].\n[...]\n4.17 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Nombre 001] assigned the accused [Nombre 046], so that during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, he would carry out functions such as the sale and distribution of drugs in the sector of the León XIII housing complex, specifically marijuana, as well as to fulfill a front man role in the registry inscription of vehicles belonging to the narco gang. Likewise, the accused [Nombre 046] delegated the function of possession, storage, and sale of drugs to the accused [Nombre 019], who carried out drug sales to third-party consumers from his residence in the same León XIII housing complex and who also participated in the criminal group as a front man in the inscription of high-value assets.\n4.18 On July 3, 2019, at 12:38 hours, the accused [Nombre 046] made the coordination arrangements through the use of his cell phone for the sale of a drug shipment to a person identified with the alias \"[Nombre 249]\".\n4.19 On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, raid, search, and seizure proceedings were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the defendant [Nombre 019], at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Nombre 019], the following result was obtained:\n- 199.48 grams of flowering tops of the cannabis sativa plant, a drug that ([Nombre 019]) sold to third parties at the property where he resided.\n- An HS-K brand gray and black electronic scale with its respective charger.\n- A total cash amount of ¢359,000.00 (three hundred fifty-nine thousand colones), money generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused ([Nombre 019]) as a direct collaborator of [Nombre 046].\n- Six cell phones with accessories described as follows: a Samsung Duos white cell phone, with IMEI numbers 352550071157109 and 352551071157107 with a Kolbi SIM card numbered 89506010919211755, an LG brand black cell phone with IMEI 357137076226645 with its respective battery and cover with a piece of paper attached with tape with number [Valor 202], a Huawei brand black cell phone, IMEI 863137041709912, with SIM number 8950604201507695102F and micro SD 8 GB, an Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, black, IMEI 355315082004465, a white cell phone, Apple brand, iPhone model, white, with a Movistar SIM card #8950604102001203204, a Samsung brand black cell phone, with external IMEI 354260112884186 and second 354261112884184, a Kingston 32 GB memory card and a Movistar SIM 8950604201002368269f\" (highlighting supplied. Cf. pp. 276 to 288 of the Judgment. Note that the accused [Nombre 019] was attributed the function of being one of the collaborators of the organization tasked with selling drugs to third parties, on the orders of [Nombre 046], who in turn was a direct collaborator of [Nombre 001]. Although the lower court held this function as proven, the truth is that the manner in which it approached and evaluated the evidence does not allow that conclusion to be reached beyond any reasonable doubt. After establishing that [Nombre 019] was part of the criminal organization — with which this Chamber concurs — the judgment states: \"However, specifically regarding the facts that have been demonstrated, it is established that on July 3, 2019, at 12:38 hours, the accused [Nombre 046] made the coordination arrangements through the use of his cell phone for the sale of a drug shipment to a person identified with the alias '[Nombre 249]'. The foregoing is held as proven based on the call detailed below: 'From [Valor 197] (using IMEI 358463090965128). Call identified with sequence number 0208919. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 134]. This call was made at 12:38 hours on July 3, 2019. [Nombre 046] alias \"[Nombre 252]\" received a call from a subject who identified himself with the name [Nombre 249]. [Nombre 252] said – Who is it? To which the subject responded – [Nombre 249]. [Nombre 252] said – Tell me. Subject said – don't you see I need two, they'll pay me on Monday. [Nombre 252] said – Well go ask \"[Nombre 240]\" for them. Subject said – And, and, he needs half the cash in sixty. [Nombre 252] said – Well man, you keep the other half, tell him to give it to you. Subject said – yes, Same same there I sell it too. [Nombre 252] said – Tell him to give you three while I send you the rest. Subject said – Okay okay. The conversation continues with no data of interest. Call ends'\" [sic] (cf. pp. 572 to 573 of the judgment).\nThe first observation that must be made is that fact 4.9, which describes an event that occurred on July 3, 2019, was attributed to [Nombre 046], not to [Nombre 019]. The second aspect observed is that the judgment does not state whether the negotiation that was taking place between [Nombre 046] and a third party came to fruition. The judgment seems to understand that it did and that the drug was delivered by [Nombre 019], but that conclusion is not drawn from the evidence that was considered. From the facts transcribed above, [Nombre 019] is attributed the sale of drugs to third parties by delegation from [Nombre 046].\n\nTo deem those actions proven, the court states: «It is clear that within the context of the organization it can be perfectly inferred that between [Nombre 046] and [Nombre 019] there existed a relationship of superiority respectively; this is reflected in that Mr. [Nombre 001] chose to use a cellular service that was registered in the name of Mr. [Nombre 046], as well as allowing the vehicle Toyota Prado license plate [Valor 135], which was used by Mr. [Nombre 001] for his transport as well as for his custody whenever he had to travel to the El Buen Pastor penal center to visit his romantic partner; from this it is entirely plausible and confirmed that Mr. [Nombre 001] assigned to Mr. [Nombre 046] the distribution and sale of drugs in the sector of Ciudadela León XIII as well as who would fulfill the role of front man (testaferro) regarding the registration of assets in his name. In addition to the foregoing, it can be perfectly derived that Mr. [Nombre 046] in turn delegated to [Nombre 019] the possession and sale of drugs to third parties from his dwelling, as was evidenced in the call just mentioned [the lower court refers to sequence 0208919]. Now then, the task of possession and sale of drugs delegated to [Nombre 019] by [Nombre 046] is evidenced based on the following calls from September 4, September 29, and October 3, all of the year 2019: “From [Valor 099]. Call identified with sequence number 0029338. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 136]. This call was made at 06:01 hours on September 4, 2019. [Nombre 161] alias “[Nombre 083]” spoke with an unidentified subject. [Nombre 083] said – Mae. Subject said – Hello. [Nombre 083] said – That from there you can’t see where they are. Subject said – Hello. [Nombre 083] said – From there you can’t see where they went in. Subject said – Who’s speaking. [Nombre 083] said – [Nombre 225]. Subject said – Operative. [Nombre 083] said – Yes. Subject said – I don’t know, I haven’t seen anything. [Nombre 083] said – You are not at home. Subject said – Yes. [Nombre 083] said – From there you can see the whole patrol car as if they went into the [Nombre 240]’s alameda, take a look. Subject said – Hold on a sec. [Nombre 083] said off-phone – Mae so you can tell them. Subject said – They’re going like towards the back of the alameda, heading inside. [Nombre 083] said – At the very back. Subject said – They’re going like towards there. [Nombre 083] said – They’re going. Subject said – Yes, some from OIJ, you could see that they were going there. [Nombre 083] said – Ah okay, they haven’t thrown anyone out. Subject said – I don’t know, from where that guy is you can’t see anything. [Nombre 083] said – Okay. Subject said – No, from where [Nombre 240] is everything looks calm. [Nombre 083] said – Okay. Subject said – Okay. The conversation ends…/…From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0155185. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 138]. This call was made at 23:14 hours on September 29, 2019. [Nombre 050] alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with a female who uses telephone line [Valor 138]. They begin speaking about matters not relevant to the investigation until second 00:04:11 when the female said – Who are you with, take it off speakerphone, now. [Nombre 065] said – Let’s go, I’m with [Nombre 074], with [Nombre 240] and with. Off-phone subject said – [Nombre 254]. [Nombre 065] said – And with [Nombre 254], the deceased. Subject who identifies himself with the alias “[Nombre 240]” said – I’m going to pick up the boss lady, boss lady. Female said – Who is it. [Nombre 240] said – Well it’s me, [Nombre 240], I’m going to pick her up at the house. Female said – It sounds like the voice of “[Nombre 255].” [Nombre 240] said – No, no, not at all, I’ll go and pick her up. Afterwards they speak about matters that are not of interest.” From the last communication, it is evidenced that alias [Nombre 065] would maintain a close relationship with various active subjects of the narco organization described in previous reports, the same one is led by [Nombre 001] alias [Nombre 136], as was set out in the following excerpt: “...female said – Who are you with, take it off speakerphone, now. [Nombre 065] said – Let’s go, I’m with [Nombre 074], with [Nombre 240] and with. Off-phone subject said – [Nombre 254]. [Nombre 065] said – And with [Nombre 254], the deceased. Subject who identifies himself with the alias “[Nombre 240]” said – I’m going to pick up the boss lady, boss lady...” in which it is reflected that the accused ([Nombre 007]) would maintain an approach with [Nombre 256] alias [Nombre 257], who within the organization would carry out the functions of hired killer (sicariato); he would also maintain a relationship with [Nombre 019] alias [Nombre 240], who within this criminal structure would be carrying out tasks of storing illicit substances. Finally, the following call is mentioned: “From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0159716.\n\nThe intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 143]. This call was made at 10:54 hours on October 3, 2019. [Name 050], alias “[Name 065]”, spoke with an unidentified subject who is the owner of telephone line [Value 143]. [Name 065] said – Hello. Subject said – Tell me. [Name 065] said – [Name 240] is on his way to you. Subject said – No. [Name 065] said – Ah, look, why don't you do me a huge favor. Subject said – Tell me. [Name 065] said – You're going to give me a down payment, huh. Subject said – Uh-huh, uh-huh. [Name 065] said – Why don't you put it there in La Uruca and pick up what you were going to get there at [Name 240]'s place, I already told him to go to your house but I don't know if he already went. Subject said – Okay, where in La Uruca. [Name 065] said – There, in La Uruca, by the school. Subject said – Ah okay. [Name 065] said – There is a Sucre. Subject said – Are you around there. [Name 065] said – I'm on my way there, I'll be there in less than five minutes. Subject said – I'm leaving now, I'm leaving now. [Name 065] said – Or if you want, tough luck for [Name 240], so that he pays you that or tell him to wait, however you like, because I told him to go to your house and he told me he was on his way. Subject said – Okay okay, I'll wait for him. [Name 065] said – Well, I'm going to call now to say, well. Subject said – Okay”. It can be perfectly noted how alias “[Name 240]” is the one who has the drug stored and also receives instructions for its delivery [sic] (cf. pages 573 to 575 of the judgment). From the information recorded in the judgment it is not possible to derive that, in effect, alias “[Name 240]” carried out actions related to the sale of drugs to third parties. Note that in sequence 0029338 [Name 161], alias “[Name 083]”, talks with a third party about a police intervention and it is only noted that he is near the domicile of “[Name 240]”, but at no time is any drug transaction alluded to. For its part, in sequence 0155185, proximity is verified between [Name 050], alias “[Name 065]” and alias “[Name 240]” but again, any direct reference to drug trafficking by the latter is lacking. Finally, in sequence 0159716, alias “[Name 065]”, talks with a third party and tells him to wait for a subject with the alias “[Name 240]” because he is going to deliver something to him, which by the context of the investigation and the activities carried out by the subjects could be drugs, but the judgment does not detail whether or not the delivery was completed and, if so, what was delivered. Unlike other communications captured during the investigation stage, in which terms fully related to drugs were used, for example “babies” to refer to cocaine, in the captured dialogues the language used —although it is suggestive of some illicit transaction—, does not make it possible to derive, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a transaction was indeed carried out, that what was traded was drugs, and that this was ultimately supplied by alias “[Name 240]”. As already indicated in another section of this pronouncement, conversations that allude to drug transactions that were ultimately not completed would not give rise to criminal liability. In addition to the foregoing, the judgment does not explain for what reason it concludes that alias “[Name 240]” is the defendant ([Name 019]), but rather takes it for granted. On this point it merely transcribes a passage from the statement of a witness, whom it does not identify —but whom this Tribunal can verify is [Name 092]— in which reference is made to the investigative proceedings that were carried out in relation to alias “[Name 240]”; however, from the transcribed excerpt it is not clear, and the judgment also does not explain, in what way [Name 019] came to be linked to said alias. And it is that, taking into account the content of the telephone communications from which possible drug transactions could be derived, only an alias is alluded to, it was relevant to clarify that aspect. It seems it was a matter that, for the trial court, at the time of issuing the judgment, was totally clear, and for that reason it issued the conviction; however, it was not adequately reflected in the pronouncement. Apart from the communications alluded to, the other elements analyzed by the trial court to support the conviction consist of the result of the search warrant carried out at the home of the accused [Name 019], from which a total of 199.48 grams of flowering tops of the cannabis sativa plant, an electronic scale, ₡359,000.00 colones, and several cell phones were recovered. This tribunal considers that, given the deficiencies pointed out, the finding of that evidence at the defendant's home, by itself, does not allow supporting the conviction. Note that the judgment does not mention that during the investigation, surveillance, seizures from third parties, controlled drug purchases, or any other type of proceeding were carried out that would allow determining that [Name 019], in effect, distributed drugs from that property. The only source of information on this point is the wiretaps, which then brings us back to the deficiencies already pointed out, because no communications were recorded in which the accused directly participates in the sale of drugs; rather, his link is made through an alias, in communications held by third parties. Clearly, as it is a conviction judgment, it is not for this Chamber to fill gaps in the judgment's grounds that imply a probative analysis that could not be broadly challenged at a later stage of the process, so the appropriate course in this scenario is to annul the judgment issued and order a retrial, so that in a new adversarial hearing, held by a different composition of the trial court, the criminal liability of the defendant is discussed again. Based on the foregoing, by majority, the first ground of appeal managed by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, and the fifth ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga are granted; consequently, the declaration of criminal liability of said defendant for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled, as well as the sentence imposed, and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of those points. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With profound respect, I separate myself from the decision of the majority of this ad quem chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I deny the first ground of the appeal of the accused [Name 019], and the fifth ground of the impugnation brief of his private defense. After reviewing the intellectual grounds of the judgment (folio 560 and following), with respect to the determination of the facts for which [Name 019] was convicted, I consider that the trial court did state reasons for its decision in accordance with the duty arising from articles 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As it did with other accused persons, in the case of [Name 019] the a quo began by recapitulating the course of the telephone intervention, for which it highlighted that the name of [Name 046] began to be linked with [Name 001] as well as with ([Name 004]), [Name 161], and [Name 010], as was set out in reports number IP-033-EN-19 and IP-128-EN-19, the judgment highlighting that as a result of the interception of communications on the telephone service used by the leader of the network, accused [Name 001], it was determined that the associated telephone line was registered in the name of [Name 046], as well as that one of the vehicles used by [Name 001], license plate [Value 144], was also registered in the name of [Name 046]. Along the same lines, the tribunal solidified the link of [Name 046] with the criminal organization in question, for which it analyzed that in March 2019, [Name 046] was approached by the Fuerza Pública aboard another vehicle, with the outstanding fact being that he was accompanied by several people who were part of the criminal organization, namely: [Name 010] and Jeison Leitón. More importantly, the decision continues studying the cited police reports, mentioning that in a surveillance and follow-up carried out on June 3, 2019, in León XIII, it was observed: “…on public roads a group of subjects was observed engaging in what appeared to be a meeting, as well as several vehicles that were in front of them belonging to the same, among which were the accused [Name 046] alias ‘[Name 252]’, who was habitually observed driving the vehicle brand Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado, color Beige, license plates [Value 035].” (cf. judgment, page 566).\n\nSubsequently, the judgment also analyzes some calls transcribed in report IP-196-EN-19, reasoning that: “The communications reveal the direct links of [Nombre 046] with the criminal structure, reflected in communications under sequence 0336138 and 0336139 as alias [Nombre 252] communicated with [Nombre 022] alias [Nombre 123] using telephone line [Valor 145], telephone service used by [Nombre 015], who is the mother of alias [Nombre 124] and alias [Nombre 123], likewise in the communications under sequences 0159673 and 0161947 and made from telephone line [Valor 146] used by the leader of the criminal organization [Nombre 001] alias [Nombre 084], who on several occasions referred to alias [Nombre 252] and even usurped the identity of [Nombre 046] upon receiving a call from a telephone company, which clearly reflects the mutual trust between [Nombre 001] and alias [Nombre 252], more abundantly in the communication under sequence 0422880, where alias [Nombre 252] made a call to telephone line [Valor 147] from IMEI 354388064791107 which is fully controlled by [Nombre 029] alias [Nombre 083] similarly showing the link. In the communication under sequence 0355249 it was possible to obtain how alias [Nombre 252] used telephone line [Valor 148] linked to IMEI 358463090965128, following the communication made by alias [Nombre 109], again reflecting the links of ([Nombre 046]) with the collaborators of ([Nombre 001])” (cf. judgment, pages 567 and 568). The lower court (a quo) points out that, based on this information, the telephone of [Nombre 046] was intercepted, highlighting a call (sequence 0159673) about which the judgment states: “…it is a conversation between acquaintances or friends, where it is [Nombre 001] himself who refers to his closeness with alias “[Nombre 252]”, they are in a public place in the company of other people.” (ibid., page 568). Now, the name of [Nombre 019] and, above all, his nickname; the court begins to assess it from the social event that took place on June 23, 2019, according to which the judicial police corroborated that [Nombre 001] gathered his collaborators and shared with them. In this regard, the judgment cites police report number IP-227-EN-19, in which the investigators identified the people they observed at said meeting, establishing that one of the attendees was: “…[Nombre 019] alias “[Nombre 240]”…”. As can be noted, the origin of the knowledge of the identity and the nickname of the defendant of interest at this point in the analysis is the work experience of the judicial investigators, since in the cited report they recorded that the observed person has that name and is known by that alias. In this regard, the court correctly indicated: “…a person who for months prior was already known to the Judicial Police to be part of the criminal group, a circumstance that was gradually accredited to the degree of certainty with this event, that is to say, it is established that [Nombre 019] was totally related and formed part of the criminal group led by Mr. [Nombre 001].” (ibid., page 572). The judgment did not overlook the issue of [Nombre 019]'s nickname, since when referring to the trial testimony of officer [Nombre 092], it highlighted his contribution on the matter: “The nickname gulú of ([Nombre 019]), according to the transcripts there were a series of transcripts, we undertook the task of carrying out joint work in addition to verifying confidential information, being that the alias was obtained with some proceedings in some approaches carried out by the Public Force, with a motorcycle the alias is linked, in addition the location of the property was coincident, on one occasion [Nombre 083] indicated that they were at gulú's house having reference to our part” (ibid., page 577). Thus, in my opinion, it is clear that the judgment did not take for granted that ([Nombre 019]) is known as “[Nombre 240]”, but rather held it to be proven based on police experience and on the basis of the express statement that, on that aspect, the cited officer made during the adversarial hearing. In other words, the police authority already had knowledge of that nickname, and that is why when they saw [Nombre 019] at the activity on June 23, 2019, they identified him by his name and moniker; and, based on all of this, the deciding body assessed the accused act as having occurred on October 3, 2019, that is, just over three months after the cited meeting. Along those lines, the judgment, after assessing the call recorded under sequence number 0159716, held it to be proven that alias “[Nombre 240]” had the drug stored in his home and received the directives to deliver it, thus confirming his role and participation as a co-perpetrator in the criminal organization of [Nombre 001]. Finally, the conviction of ([Nombre 019]) was solidified evidentiarily when the court assessed the result of the search of his home, which occurred ten days after the referred telephone call. Upon estimating that [Nombre 019] had in his domicile 199.48 grams of flowering tops of cannabis sativa, as well as an electronic scale, several mobile phones and cash, the lower court (a quo) concluded that: “…[Nombre 019] had no type of formal economic income, it is accredited that the quantity of drug, money, cell phones as well as the scale, are typical of possession for the sale of drugs that was delegated to him (…) and the perspective must not be lost that the court has judged a criminal organization where each of its members fulfilled a designated role within the distribution of functions that was manifest from the prior agreed plan.” (ibid., page 577). Such being the case, from my point of view, the substantiation of the conviction of [Nombre 019], was indeed done in accordance with the requirements of articles 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), which is why my vote is to declare the first ground of the appeal filed by the defendant in exercise of his material defense without merit.\n\nSecond ground of appeal managed by [Nombre 019], in exercise of his material defense. It claims “Lack of intellectual substantiation (falta de fundamentación intelectiva) in the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales)”. He asserts that there is a lack of substantiation regarding the way in which the court held it to be certain that the money used for the payment of the down payment on the vehicle license plate [Valor 125] came from narcotics trafficking. He points out that, based on that fact, a sentence of ten years of imprisonment was issued for the crime of money laundering. He details that, according to the prosecutorial accusation (acusación fiscal), the money was collected in colones and the judgment does not explain how the transformation of the funds into dollars to make the vehicle payments occurred. He estimates that it is not a peripheral aspect; on the contrary, it demonstrates that there is no relationship between the collected money and the illicit activity. He asserts that the lack of substantiation on the way in which the money conversion was made, by which person, in which financial institution and in what quantity, constitutes a gap in the reasoning (motivación) that does not allow for appellate review of the reasoning carried out and affects the right of defense. He argues that it was necessary to establish whether any financial institution verified the origin of the funds. He details that both the accusation and the judgment refer to him buying the vehicle and placing it at the disposal of the criminal organization, but it does not justify who gave him the money to acquire it, nor the means of proof that allowed for the verification of the fact. As a grievance, he asserts he was condemned for the crime of money laundering, without the essential elements of the criminal type (tipo penal) being explained to him and he was prevented from offering exculpatory evidence.\n\n**Fourth ground** of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, on behalf of the defendant ([Name 019]). It challenges the conviction for the crime of money laundering. Regarding the “vehicle transactions” attributed to ([Name 019]) in relation to other co-defendants, he indicates that it was not proven that his client acted with intent (dolo) or bad faith, but rather participated as a buyer without the selling company objecting to or questioning the origin of the money. He adds that the sales were made on credit and that there is a lack of evidence, because the illicit origin of the money has not been proven. Regarding the harm, he specifies that “my defendant's right to remain free was violated.” He requests that his client be acquitted of all penalty and responsibility, due to the absence of intent (dolo). In the alternative, he requests that the sentence be annulled and a retrial be ordered. **The claim must be declared without merit.** The *a quo* issued a conviction against ([Name 019]) for the crime of money laundering, having accredited the following facts: “*1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they maintained under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for receiving money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operating model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: […] The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for this purpose the use of various means to that end. 3.- This drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction, the commercialization of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: […] [Name 019]: member of the criminal group, his hierarchical rank within the group was to provide collaboration to other high-ranking members of the criminal group, such as the accused ([Name 046]) in the storage and sale of drugs. Moreover, his **functionality as a front man (testaferro) was proven, by facilitating his name for the registration of high economic value assets, property of the criminal organization led by [Name 001]** […] *5.- During the investigation period between the months of April 2018 and the month of October 2020, the Criminal Organization formed by the investigated [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016] and [Name 019], as a consequence of the significant illicit profits produced from the serious activity of trafficking and selling narcotics, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001] […] *5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of assets acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030], carried out the necessary steps for the purchase and registry inscription of the vehicle brand Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this asset at the agency Purdy Motor S.A. for the sum of ₡ 44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was assigned by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001]*” [sic] (cf. pages 276 to 299 of the judgment). From the reading of the intellectual reasoning, it is apparent that the *a quo* addressed the process of acquiring the vehicle brand Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 125], in the section called “Facts relating to [Name 030] and [Name 019].” Thus, the existing relationship between [Name 030] and [Name 019] is detailed, by virtue of both having participated in the process of acquiring the asset.\n\nThe judgment takes up passages from the statement of judicial investigator Alexander Mejía Alvarado, from the experts Rodrigo Chaves Calvo and Elizabeth Segura González, from the police report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 dated April 22, 2022, and its extension. From this recount, it stands out as a relevant fact that [Name 030] was responsible for the reservation of the vehicle and two initial payments; while [Name 019] made several cash payments that were credited via bank deposit. To verify this circumstance, the judgment takes up the extension of police report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 (cf. pages 3764 to 3787 of the investigation file), in which the data derived from the Purdy Motor agency file was recorded. It is verified that, dated July 6, 2018, there is a sales invoice for the vehicle to [Name 019] for an amount of $77,500.00, for the acquisition of the vehicle with plate [Value 125]. This individual made several payments: “*Folio N° 04. Invoice N° 1132727, of April 27, 2018, where Mr. [Name 019], made a payment with cash money of FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AMERICAN DOLLARS ($4,500.00). Folio N° 05.*\n\nInvoice No. 1132760, dated June 29, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 019] made the payment in cash of SIX THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($6,000.00) [… ] Folio No. 08. Invoice No. 1132810, dated July 5, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 019], who made the payment in cash of FIVE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($5,000.00). Folio No. 09. Invoice No. 1132837, dated July 6, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 019], made the payment in cash of THREE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($3,000.00) [… ] Folio No. 12. The Release Order No. 0287737, dated July 6, 2018, is observed, corresponding to the delivery of unit 177968 to Mr. [Nombre 019]. Folio No. 13. Consists of the Money Receipt No. 0347838, dated July 6, 2018, in which he paid in cash of FIFTY US DOLLARS ($50.00), made by Mr. ([Nombre 019]), for the payment of the metal license plates» (cfr. fs. 843 to 844 of the judgment). In addition to the foregoing, as indicated, the evidence shows that the vehicle was reserved by [Nombre 334], who made the initial payments that were later transferred in favor of [Nombre 019]: Folio No. 03. Invoice No. 1006462, dated March 16, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 030], made the payment in cash of ONE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($1,000.00), noting the legend \"reservation VH nuevo EXPO\" [… ] Folio No. 06. Invoice No. 1006187, dated March 11, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 030] made the payment in cash of ONE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($1,000.00). Folio No. 07 Invoice No. 1132702, dated June 25, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 030] made the payment in cash of FIVE THOUSAND US DOLLARS. ($5,000.00), recording the legend \"Installment CT VH NUE\" [… ] Folio No. 18. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26734, dated July 5, 2019, with advance No. EXP-00007989, where the client [Nombre 030], transferred the advance to [Nombre 019], for the sum of ONE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($1,000.00). Folio No. 20. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26713, without a date registration, with advance No. PCO-00597833 and EXP-00008265, where the client [Nombre 030], transferred the advance to [Nombre 019], the sum of SIX THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($6,000.00)» (cfr. fs. 843 to 845 of the judgment). Finally, in the acquisition of the vehicle, [Nombre 033], wife of [Nombre 030], also intervened: «Folio No. 10. Invoice No. 1116730, dated November 28, 2018, where Ms. [Nombre 033], made the cash payment of FIVE HUNDRED US DOLLARS ($500.00). Folio No. 11. There is a document called DEBIT NOTE No. 04355737, dated July 6, 2018, recording that Ms. [Nombre 033], assigned the vehicle make Volkswagen, style Jett MK6, model 2016, white color, license plate [Valor 114], as part of payment, receiving it for TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED US DOLLARS ($23,200.00), money that was added to the account of the new good as income for advance [… ] Folio No. 14. The Advance Transfer Slip No. 26738, dated July 6, 2018, is observed, where the client [Nombre 033], transferred advance No. PCN-00001271 to [Nombre 019], for an amount of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED US DOLLARS ($23,200.00). Folio No. 16. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26711, dated June 28, 2018, with advance No. PCO-00595470, with the client [Nombre 033], transferring to Mr. [Nombre 019], an amount of FIVE HUNDRED US DOLLARS ($500.00)» (cfr. fs. 844 to 845). Regarding the economic profile of [Nombre 019], the judgment takes up a passage from police report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 dated April 22, 2022, which states: «5.1.17 [Nombre 019], fully identified in report 25-SLC-CI-20, is not registered with the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) as an \"Employee\" nor as an \"Employer\", nor is he registered with the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda) under any Economic Activity, he has no participation in commercial companies and also does not have products in the National Financial System..[… ]..5.1.17.1 Assets of the investigated [Nombre 019] he has registered in his name the vehicle license plate [Valor 125], make Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX-L, valued at FORTY-FOUR MILLION TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND COLONES (₡44,272,000.00). According to the report of the Narcotics Section No. IP-033-EN-19, this good is related during the investigations in possession of [Nombre 001]» (cfr. fs. 842 to 843 of the judgment). In relation to the economic profile of ([Nombre 019]), expert witness Rodrigo Chaves Calvo also declared at trial, who clarified that the only investigated persons reporting any lawful activity were [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 001], although in an insufficient manner to justify the acquisition of high-value goods such as those identified during the investigation, so consequently [Nombre 019] did not report any lawful remunerative activity that explains the cash payments he made for the acquisition of the motor vehicle. It is highlighted that the judgment also clarifies that during the investigation period it was determined that the vehicle was used by [Nombre 001], which was verified on December 3, 2018, at around 8:46 p.m., when he was approached by Public Force (Fuerza Pública) officers while driving it. From the foregoing, the a quo deduced that, even though the defendant [Nombre 019] was the registered owner of the good, he was not the one who used it, nor the one who supplied the money for its acquisition. This Chamber agrees that it is a valid conclusion, taking into account that, as indicated, the subject does not have a lawful remunerative activity that allows him to obtain a good of such high value. Adding to this that the person in charge of reserving the vehicle and who made the initial payments was a third party, namely [Nombre 030], who was closely related to [Nombre 001], leader of a criminal structure of local drug trafficking.\n\nTo the above must be added other circumstances that were recorded in the judgment and that reinforce that the intervention of [Nombre 019] in that legal transaction was not accidental or in good faith. Note that ([Nombre 019]) also intervened in the acquisition of another vehicle in August 2019, specifically the BMW, X-5 model, license plate [Valor 127], valued at $40,000, at the agency Bavarian Motors CR. S.A., since various payment receipts in dollars and colones issued by the agency are in his name—₡4,500,000.00, $4,703.83, $5,000.00, $840, $3,490.40, $40.00, $4,310.65, $4,980.00—; which in turn are linked to cash deposit vouchers in dollars and colones, generated by various banking entities (cf. pp. 290 to 306 of the evidentiary file). This movable property was finally registered in the name of another of the investigated persons ([Nombre 016]), thereby clarifying the role adopted by this subject, as a collaborator for the acquisition of high-end vehicles for the criminal organization. This last motor vehicle was seen by the judicial police in the possession of a subject identified as [Nombre 268], alias \"[Nombre 269]\", linked to drug trafficking activity at the retail level in criminal case No. 19-000160-062-PE and also of [Nombre 053], who transported in that motor vehicle ₡1,902,600 that were linked in the judgment to drug trafficking activity. The intervention of the accused in the acquisition of this vehicle was addressed in the judgment in the section \"Facts in relation to ([Nombre 016])\", in which it was highlighted: \"[...] a person identified with the name of [Nombre 053] was linked, in which an amount of money and jewelry was seized, and the dog used at that time gave a positive alert for traces of drugs, a seizure that occurred when [Nombre 053] was traveling in the motor vehicle license plate [Valor 127], therefore said motor vehicle according to the records seized and analyzed by the Section of Legitimization of Capitals indicated in report 10-SLC-R-22 AMP I, CPA 15-21, was acquired from the company Bavarian Motors CR S.A., it recorded the co-defendant [Nombre 019] as the buyer, who paid an amount of ($40,000.00) forty thousand United States dollars, which is typical of ways to evade supervisory controls and thus conceal the rights held over the assets, since the vehicle is registered in the name of the accused [Nombre 016]\" (cf. p. 868 of the judgment). Although this last event was not charged to the accused in the indictment, it is relevant at the evidentiary level, to understand the role he played within the criminal structure, as it allows us to rule out—as indicated—that his intervention in the acquisition of the vehicle license plate [Valor 031] was casual or accidental.\n\nOnly within the framework of the fraudulent participation in the money laundering (legitimación de capitales) scheme, which has been pointed out here, can it be explained that a person who does not report a stable source of income allocates large sums of money to the payment of luxury automobiles that are registered in the name of other persons and, even more so, that these are used by individuals other than the persons who acquire them and those who register them in their name. Finally, the judgment also addressed another relevant piece of information, specifically that the asset was transferred to a third party while [Name 019] was detained for this case, which demonstrates said subject's eagerness to divert the asset from any judicial action: \"*Attention is drawn to a registration movement of the vehicle [Value 031] at the time when [Name 019] was already deprived of liberty for the case at hand, which was recorded as follows: 'The foregoing situation was extracted from the digital platform of the National Registry, individualized in deed number two hundred sixty–five of Notary Public Juan Carlos Mora Carrera, apparently signed on March 10, 2021, in San José, Pérez Zeledón, where [Name 019] alias \"[Name 240]\", identity card [Value 007] (being in a condition of deprivation of liberty located in the Electronic Mechanisms Unit Pérez Zeledón), sells to [Name 270], identity card [Value 153], the aforementioned motor vehicle, Toyota brand, Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style, circulation plates [Value 125] for the sum of five million colones, also accepting the lien that encumbers the asset in favor of the financial company Cafsa S.A., however, the full payment for the cancellation of stamps and the transfer before the Banco de Costa Rica was made hours after the seizure of the vehicle on March 16, 2021 (Image No. 4) a situation that generates even more doubt about the origin of the motor vehicle, given that, apparently, by the date of the seizure the notarial act had already been carried out before Mr. Mora Carrera, nevertheless, the female [Name 270] indicated only what was recorded in the interview and made no mention at any time of the ownership of the asset, the signing of any document or similar, reason for which, the questioned transfer could be considered as a strategy to not lose the vehicle and attempt to manipulate reality or the true intention of hiding the asset.' (see extension III report 25-SLC-CI-20)\" (cf. pp. 852 to 853 of the judgment). Based on the exposed circumstances, this Chamber agrees with the *a quo*, in that, based on the evidence produced at trial, it was possible to consider the facts attributed to [Name 019] constituting a crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) as proven, insofar as he intervened in the acquisition of the Toyota vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style, circulation plate [Value 125], with money coming from drug trafficking activity, which is verified by the intervention in the acquisition of [Name 030], a close collaborator of [Name 001], added to the fact that the defendant [Name 019] does not have lawful remunerative activities that would allow him to obtain an asset of such a high value and that he was not its possessor. Now, in order to respond to some of the specific complaints raised by both the technical and material defense, it is important to highlight that the *a quo* considered the medium-scale drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal organization that was prosecuted in this case as proven. Thus, the supply of drugs to two criminal organizations was established, as detailed in facts 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36 and 4.37, which was extensively analyzed in considerando X, to which reference is made for its reading. As a result of that activity, which generated an approximate profit of ₡5,100,000.00 per kilogram of cocaine traded, the flow of cash that the criminal organization received was generated. When analyzing the participation of ([Name 004]), it was also possible to determine a whole logistical operation developed by said subject and his wife [Name 026] for the conversion of national currency into foreign currency, for which they recruited third parties who appeared at different banking entities to carry out the currency exchange, which explains why some of the assets acquired by the organization were paid for in dollars. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that there are no defects in the analysis of the evidence set forth in the judgment, regarding the determination of criminal responsibility of [Name 019] in the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Consequently, the second ground of the appeal filed by the defendant and the fourth ground of his legal representative are declared ***without merit***.\n\n**XXIX. First ground of the appeal of the judgment initiated by the attorney-at-law Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense attorney for ([Name 016]).**\n\nAlleges \"Lack of intellective reasoning in relation to the facts held as proven and violation of the principle of non-contradiction.\" Mr. Soto Aguilar considers that articles 39 of the Political Constitution, as well as articles 142, 184 and 363 subsections b) and c), of the Criminal Procedure Code have been violated. He indicates that the duty to provide reasoning for the judgment includes descriptive and intellective evidentiary motivation, and in relation to this second stage, it must be express, clear, complete, legitimate, concordant, non-contradictory and logical. He states that, in this matter, the defendant [Name 050] is the brother of the accused ([Name 016]), and the former is accused of having recruited the latter to store drug caches and legitimize assets of the criminal organization (facts 4.20 and 5.13 of the accusatory instrument, which he transcribes). Thus, the technical defense indicates that the conduct attributed to ([Name 016]) depends directly on the participation in the criminal organization attributed to her brother, [Name 017]. However, the appellant points out that the a quo suppressed from the judgment the facts in which [Name 050] appeared as an accused, as he was absent at the time of the trial, ordering in relation to him the testimony of pieces (case file 23-000005-0622-PE). To this effect, Mr. Soto Aguilar inserts a portion of the intellective evidentiary reasoning of the appealed judgment, in which it is indicated that the first of the events demonstrated against [Name 016] was the possession and storage of drugs, which occurred on December 5, 2019 at 3:52 p.m., while the second event was located on December 24, 2019 and \"it is held as demonstrated against [Name 050] and his sister ([Name 016])\" (f. 7318 vto.). He argues that it is illegitimate to hold as certain the existence of [Name 016]'s link to the organization, since this necessarily depended on her brother's intervention in the facts and, more seriously, the participation of [Name 017] in a specific fact was held as certain, without him having been tried in this case. He asserts, as a grievance, that if the evidence had been analyzed according to the rules of sound rational criticism, his client would have been acquitted of all penalty and responsibility. The ground is dismissed. The judgment held the following facts linking [Name 016] as proven: \"1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money resulting from the illicit activity. 2. The operative model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: The storage and dosing of the drug caches acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of caches to the various points of commercialization. The commercialization of drug caches belonging to the criminal group to other narco-gangs based in the national territory. The commercialization of drug caches belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug dependents, through the properties that the organization held for such purposes, 'Bunker' type, as well as on the public roads of the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for this purpose the use of various means to that end. 3.\n\nThis drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so that each of its members carried out specific functions, all in a single direction, the commercialization of drugs and the protection of the group over the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: […] [Name 016]: member of the criminal structure, who among other functions assisted the accused [Name 050] in the storage tasks of drug caches belonging to the narco gang in her home, and she was also another of the members who were responsible for facilitating the organization in the concealment of money from the criminal activity by registering in her name movable property acquired with the proceeds of drug distribution and sale, to make them available for the enjoyment of the members of the criminal group. […] 4. During the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2019, the criminal organization made up of the accused developed a series of criminal actions in pursuit of the organization's ultimate goal, which is drug trafficking, among which the following stand out: […] 4.20 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] assigned the accused [Name 050] (absent), so that during the period from the month of April 2018 until the month of October 2020, he would carry out functions such as the distribution and sale of drugs in the sector of the León XIII housing complex, specifically Marijuana. Likewise, the accused [Name 050] delegated the function of possession, storage and sale of drugs to his sister, the accused ([Name 016]), who carried out the sales of drugs to third-party consumers from her home in the same León XIII housing complex and in turn also participated in the criminal group as a front person (testaferro) in the registration of high economic value assets. 4.21 On December 5, 2019, at 4:52 p.m., as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Name 016]) kept under her custody and possession in her home, located in [...] a cache of narcotics, an action that was carried out in assistance and collaboration with her brother [Name 050]. 4.22 On December 24, 2019, at 2:58 p.m., as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Name 016]) kept under her custody and possession in her home, located in [...] a cache of narcotics, an action that was directly ordered by her brother, the accused [Name 050]. […] 5. During the investigation period between the months of April 2018 and until the month of October 2020, the Criminal Organization made up of the investigated [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016], [Name 019], [Name 033], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement and rights over different assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001]. […] 5.13 During the period between the month of January 2018 and until the month of October 2020, the accused person identified as [Name 050], with the purpose of inserting, diversifying and layering the money from drug trafficking, recruited his sister, the accused ([Name 016]), in order for her to provide her function as a front person (testaferro) to conceal the illicit origin of movable property, such as high-end vehicles, which were acquired by the criminal group, with money from drug trafficking, an activity of which the accused ([Name 016]) maintained full knowledge.\n\nAmong the vehicles registered in the accused's name are the following: a Volkswagen vehicle, Jetta MK6 style, license plate [Valor 032], which holds a value of 9,022,000.00 (nine million twenty-two thousand colones), a BMW vehicle, X5 style, with a value of $37,930.00 (thirty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty dollars), money that was paid in cash at the dealership Bavarian Motors CR S.A. by the accused on September 6, 2019, and a Ford vehicle, Ranger style, license plate [Valor 034], valued at the sum of ₡15,000,000.00 (fifteen million colones) [...] 6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, search, seizure, and confiscation (allanamiento, registro y secuestro) proceedings were carried out at the various points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the defendants [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts and that is set out below: [...] 6.13 Regarding the result of the search, seizure, and confiscation proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Nombre 016], the following result was obtained, and these items correspond to objects acquired with money from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cellphone, blue and purple in color, with IMEI 868139049562744 and IMEI 868139049586750, in fair condition, Sim card with non-visible phone number. • A Huawei brand cellphone, gray in color, with no visible IMEI and a broken screen. • A Samsung brand cellphone, black in color, with IMEI 356017/07/356627/7, with its back panel broken. • A Samsung brand cellphone, gray in color, with IMEI 351712/10/099841/3 and IMEI 351713/10099841/1. • A total amount of cash in the amount of ₡3,321,000.00 (three million three hundred twenty-one thousand colones), and $60 (sixty dollars), money that was generated from the criminal activity of drug sales carried out by the accused ([Nombre 016]). • A Samsung brand cellphone, pink in color, with a broken screen, IMEI 3585518/08/872698/2 and IMEI 358517/08/872698/0. • A Samsung A10 brand cellphone, red in color, with IMEI 358100/10/833702/9. • A Huawei brand cellphone, model JKMLX3, black in color with two IMEI numbers, the first IMEI 866861049485004, the second IMEI 866861049520016, with a broken screen in fair condition, with its black 16gb Sandisk SD card and Movistar SIM card serial 89506041010026535607. • A Huawei brand cellphone, black in color, model JKM-LX3, with IMEI 865365042597741, with a black Adita brand 51)8613 card, with a sim card serial 8950604401712274511f in fair condition. • A Huawei brand cellphone, black in color, with two IMEI, the first 865163044717965 and the second 865163044757979, in fair condition with a white and red Claro SIM card with serial number 8950603018885859646F without an SD card. • A non-lethal Glock 9mm type pistol, serial 2016N061733, black in color, 35 gold-colored rounds marked Blazer 9mm Luger brand, two unfired 12 gauge rounds, Super X brand, Western. • A digital video recorder with serial number D63292428, white in color, with its respective power adapter\" [sic] (cfr. pp. 276 to 321). As is evident from the foregoing account, the argument made by the technical defense counsel for ([Nombre 016])—to the effect that the suppression from the statement of facts of the actions linking [Nombre 050] made it impossible to attribute criminal liability to her client—is untenable. Observe that the factual framework describes the accusation made against ([Nombre 016]) clearly, precisely, and in detail, both for the crime of drug trafficking and for that of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). While it is true that it is stated that ([Nombre 016])'s link to the criminal organization occurred through her brother [Nombre 017], this does not imply that, in his absence, the court was barred from trying her. This is a logic that sidelines what is truly relevant, namely, the reconstruction of events that may be made through the evidence adduced at trial. If this evidence effectively pointed to that link, the court could validly determine the criminal liability of the accused ([Nombre 016]), since she is the person being tried. What the absence of a person from the proceeding prevents is their conviction in that condition (for which reason they must be tried at another time), but it does not eliminate or erase from reality the very existence of the events in which not only she but also other persons could have taken part. It must be remembered that liability in criminal matters is personal in nature, so it does not depend on the procedural situation of the other defendants involved. Sound rational criticism (sana crítica racional) makes it possible, even in the case of common evidence, to draw the corresponding conclusions for each accused person; therefore, the joint prosecution of all accused persons, although it may be practical or ideal, is not indispensable as the appellant proposes. The fact that the trial court stated that, based on the evidence adduced, it was feasible to deduce that [Nombre 050] participated in the criminal dynamic in no way implies a trial in absentia, nor a violation of his fundamental rights. As can be observed, said individual was not declared responsible for any crime, nor was any sentence imposed on him, and therefore, when his trial takes place, what the a quo stated in the judgment under analysis does not compromise, nor bind, the authority hearing the matter. In due course, the discussion of [Nombre 050]’s criminal liability—if he appears in the proceeding—will be conducted based on the accusation made against him and the evidence adduced in a possible trial, exactly as occurs in any other proceeding where a severance of items has been ordered against a person to be tried separately. The defense attempts to construct a non-existent procedural obstacle based on a generic invocation of the adversarial principle (principio de contradicción), which does not overcome the barrier of simple disagreement and does not evidence any error, much less a grievance for her client. Accepting her argument would not only favor impunity but would also run counter to a significant number of procedural principles, including that of swift and complete justice, as well as effective judicial protection. Based on the foregoing, having found that there has been no violation of the adversarial principle by the suppression of the facts attributed to [Nombre 050] from the accredited factual framework, the ground is declared without merit. The remaining aspects of the complaint, as they relate to the assessment of evidence, will be analyzed in the following considerandos.\n\nXXX.\n\nSecond ground of the challenge filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defender of ([Nombre 016]). He claims \"Lack of probative and intellective grounds for the illicit conduct held as proven.\" The challenger points out the non-observance of Article 39 of the Political Constitution, as well as Articles 142, 184, and 363 subsections b) and c), of the Criminal Procedural Code, considering that the trial court gave the evidence a scope that is not possible in accordance with the principle of sufficient derivation. In this regard, he states that ([Nombre 016]) never had her telephone line intervened, so the two communications of interest in relation to her and that are transcribed in the intellective analysis — those made on December 5 and 24, 2019 — refer, according to the sentencing court, to conversations held between [Nombre 017] and [Nombre 016] from telephone number [Valor 104], which was indeed intervened. He argues that, according to the evidence, the telephone number established as belonging to [Nombre 016] is [Valor 154]. Despite this, the communication of December 24, 2019, is made from the intercepted number [Valor 104] and the number 8820-3184. The technical defense alleges that, beyond the identity or similarity that the a quo asserts in relation to the voice of [Nombre 016], there is no way to determine if the female voice heard on the call dated December 24, 2019, belongs to his client. Despite this, without any basis, since there was no independent means of proof, the sentencing court states that in the call made on December 24, 2019, the same dynamic of the conversation held on the 5th of the same month and year is repeated. As a grievance, he argues that, had the evidence been analyzed in accordance with the rules of sound judgment, the accused would have been acquitted of all penalty and responsibility, deeming that a reasonable doubt existed regarding the events held as proven. For reasons different from those alleged, by majority, the ground is granted. Contrary to what the technical defense asserted, the a quo did explain the reasons why it determined that the accused [Nombre 016] was the person who conversed with [Nombre 050] in the communications with sequence numbers 0125419, at 4:52 PM on December 5, 2019, and 0141695 at 2:58 PM on December 24, 2019, derived from the interception of line [Valor 104]. The court indicated that the voice in both communications is the same one recorded in conversations with [Nombre 001], in which the latter calls her by name. Furthermore, the oral and public debate extended over several months, so the court was able to hear and recognize the voice of the accused persons, which constitutes an additional element that allowed it to corroborate the information. It must be remembered that the Costa Rican criminal process is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence, which allows a fact to be proven by any lawful means of proof. However, this Chamber observes that the accreditation of the facts constituting drug trafficking attributed to the defendant was once again carried out based on the content of the telephone communications, without any other external corroborating element distinct from the relationship of the accused with other defendants in this case. It can be seen that in the section identified as \"Hechos en contra de [Nombre 050] (ausente) y ([Nombre 016]) asignados por [Nombre 001]\" (cf. p. 577 of the judgment), the a quo begins its analysis with a broad explanation of the way in which [Nombre 337], his brother [Nombre 338], and the mother of both, [Nombre 015], were linked to the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001]; as well as the intellective basis upon which their criminal responsibility for the illicit act of drug trafficking was derived — to which reference will be made in another section of the resolution. The foregoing served as background for the analysis carried out regarding [Nombre 050], who, according to the accusation and judgment, delegated part of the drug distribution and sale functions to his sister ([Nombre 016]). This investigated person's telephone communications were intervened, by jurisdictional order, through telephone number [Valor 104] linked to IMEI 867265037177269. Then, conversations of said subject are analyzed, from which the a quo concludes his participation in activities typical of drug trafficking as a precedent for what it would later say about ([Nombre 016]). Now, regarding the accused, it expressly states: \"Having clear the participation of [Nombre 050] in a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking, two specific events were attributed to him which are held as proven, the first of them being that on December 5, 2019, at 4:52 PM, as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused, ([Nombre 016]), kept under her custody and possession in her home, located in [...], a stash of narcotics, an action that was carried out in assistance and collaboration with her brother [Nombre 050]. To hold the previous event as proven, the following call was available: 'From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0125419. The intervened telephone number maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 105]. This call was made at 4:52 PM on December 5, 2019. [Nombre 050] alias \"[Nombre 065]\" received a call from [Nombre 016], user of the telephone number [Valor 105].\n\n[Nombre 050] said -hello, [Nombre 016] said -look, [Nombre 050] said -what, [Nombre 016] said -it's that he said that you told him there were nine but here there's a little one, like this, skinny, [Nombre 050] said -there are eight, [Nombre 016] said -no, here there are three, why are there three closed things, [Nombre 050] said -they are packs of two, [Nombre 016] said -yes here there are seven and I gave one to him and you gave one to Diego, [Nombre 050] said -there have to be eight there, [Nombre 016] said -what's here, I don't know, what's here is one open and three closed, seven and one that I gave to “[Nombre 272]” and one that [Nombre 325] took, [Nombre 050] said -well yeah idiot, that would be, there are seven there and one that [Nombre 272] has, that's eight, [Nombre 016] said -that's right, yes, but he already took it, one day, [Nombre 050] said -that's why there are eight in total with the one he took, [Nombre 016] said -well yeah stupid, but okay, you tell me there are eight and [Nombre 272] as well, [Nombre 050] said -that there are eight with the one he has, they continue talking about aspects that are not relevant\". Regarding [Nombre 016], the judicial police identified her with ID number [Valor 006], sister of [Nombre 050] and user of the telephone service [Valor 154], in the accusation she is attributed, among other functions, with having assisted the accused [Nombre 050] in the tasks of storing drug stashes belonging to the narco band's property in her home, she was also one of the members responsible for facilitating the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in her name movable assets acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to make them available for the use and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group. In the call that [Nombre 017] makes to her sister [Nombre 016], it is evident that [Nombre 016] is in her home guarding packages or drug stashes, an action she carried out in assistance to her brother [Nombre 017], they talk about how many packages are there, they do sums given some deliveries that [Nombre 016] had made and they reach an agreement that there are eight, which reveals that it involved the storage of drugs, the foregoing based on the analysis that has been established regarding the way in which the police managed to link [Nombre 050] with the criminal group dedicated to trafficking drug stashes. The second specific event demonstrated against [Nombre 050] and his sister ([Nombre 016]) is that on December 24, 2019, at 14:58 hours, as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Nombre 016]), kept under her custody and possession in her home, located in [...], a stash of narcotics, an action that was directly ordered by her brother, the defendant [Nombre 050]. To prove this event, the following call was available: “From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0141695. The intervened telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 155]. This call was made at 14:58 hours on December 24, 2019. [Nombre 050] alias “[Nombre 065]” made a call to an unidentified female, user of telephone line [Valor 155]. Female said -hello, [Nombre 050] said -where are you, Female said -at home, [Nombre 050] said -they're going to drop off a thing for me right now so you can keep it for me, Female said -wait daddy because I can't hear you, a lot of noise, now yes tell me, [Nombre 050] said -right now they're going to drop off a thing for me and you count it for me and keep it for me, Female said – okay, okay, [Nombre 050] said -okay\".\n\nIt is evident that this is a conversation that [Name 050] is having with his sister ([Name 016]), repeating the same dynamic regarding the event of December 5, 2019, where while ([Name 016]) was at her home, she receives a call from her brother who asks her to receive something that they are going to leave for him, giving her the instruction to count it and keep it, reflecting once again the control that ([Name 016]) has over the drug that her brother traffics and with total willingness she answers that yes, she will receive it, which likewise proves [Name 016]'s role regarding the storage of the drug. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is both interlocutors; in the case of ([Name 016]) the voice in both calls is identical, the dynamic coincides given that she is the one who stays in the home where the drug that her brother [Name 050] traffics is stored. As for the address where [Name 016] was located, it is indeed [...] the same home that was raided. On the other hand, in different calls that ([Name 016]) has with [Name 001], her voice is fully recognized, which is the same as in the calls of the two events analyzed in the preceding lines. An example of a call in which [Name 016]'s voice is also recognized is the following: “From [Value 097]. Call identified with sequence number 0218707. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 105]. This call was made at 17:45 hours on February 5, 2020. Sequence number System date and time 0218707 02/05/2020 05:45:23 p.m. [Name 001] alias “[Name 084]” made a call to [Name 016], user of the telephone line [Value 105]. [Name 016] said -hello, [Name 001] said -[Name 016] why don't you do me an urgent favor, why don't you tell “[Name 065]” to answer [Name 099], but urgently, urgently urgently, [Name 016] said -okay I'm going, [Name 001] said -please”; but beyond recognizing [Name 016]'s voice, the hierarchical degree that [Name 001] holds over [Name 050] is evident, given that through [Name 016], [Name 001] orders [Name 017] to answer a call for a guy with the last name [Name 099], to which [Name 016] likewise complied with what was requested by [Name 001].\n\nAll the steps taken were recounted in the trial by investigator [Name 092], who, with respect to what is relevant, stated: \"...in December 2019 the criminal judge informed us of a series of communications in which [Name 050] was coordinating with [Name 001] a possible robbery or rip-off, as a hostile organization is known in police terms; and so it is that in the criminal judge's transcriptions it was reflected how to approach the people and which police vehicles would be assisting them. According to our police experience, that coordination was being done with Public Force personnel, in which they even told [Name 050] how they should act to appear to be OIJ officers; that they should avoid jumping out like crazy people saying bad words and insults. The subject told them to get out calmly, to say 'police, this is a drug operation' and that's it. However, according to the transcription, on occasions outside the telephone, [Name 001] indicated that the targets were the two vehicles, a Corolla and a Rav4, this being consistent with an event that took place on that day, December 19, 2019, if I am not mistaken, in which the deprivation of liberty of a male of Panamanian nationality occurred in the Sabana sector. According to the different statements of the police forces that attended the events, an apparent police checkpoint (retén policial) was being carried out where some of the policemen used balaclavas. Therefore, upon seeing this situation, a unit of the San José Municipal Police approached the event, at which point several subjects fled. On that day, according to the approaches and the steps taken by the acting police forces, it was possible to identify not only the person they had detained but also 2 vehicles, a Corolla and a Rav4. It was possible to detain some of the subjects who participated in the deprivation of liberty, one being alias [Name 252] and the other [Name 349] alias [Name 350]. This is important because at the moment of the approach, [Name 351] was wearing insignia and clothing similar to those used by OIJ investigators; while alias [Name 252], in his flight, was shedding his clothes and was approached in Sabana Norte wearing only his underwear. On his escape route, the police officers who approached the scene located a firearm that, upon checking, was registered in the name of [Name 046] alias [Name 252]. A Kia Rio vehicle was located, I do not remember the license plate, it was registered in the name of [Name 273], this being one of the people who visited [Name 030]. Additionally, a Toyota Four Runner was located, which on our part had been observed on previous dates at the property of alias [Name 252], reflecting this situation how the criminal group, in a very organized manner, was carrying out robberies against other groups or civilians. This is because, according to the complaint of the offended person in this event, they had been stripped of a considerable amount of cash. In relation to [Name 050] alias [Name 065], according to the criminal judge's wiretaps, he was a person in charge of the sale of the drug stash and who delegated the warehousing of the stash to his sister [Name 016]. This is because, according to the judge's transcriptions, on December 24, 2019, communications occurred where [Name 050] delegated not only the delivery of drugs and receipt of money by [Name 016]. On one occasion, thanks to the judge's wiretaps, it was reflected how [Name 016] called [Name 001], expressing her concern since alias [Name 065] had been approached by the police. However, at the moment of the communication, [Name 050] was allowed to continue and immediately picks up the telephone to speak with [Name 001], and he told him that the police, upon approaching him, told him to call his father, to which [Name 001] said to him –and what else?– [Name 050] told him that, furthermore, the Mexicans were going to come and give us all up. According to our experience, this refers to possible robberies that the organization led by [Name 001] may have perpetrated. Additionally, on our part and thanks to the wiretaps, a situation of this nature had already been captured. The link of alias [Name 252] in these events is important, since according to the wiretaps, 2 events about the possible robbery or rip-off of other organizations were also reflected. One of these was captured by the criminal judge's wiretaps in the month of June 2019, in which all the participation and the actual operation carried out by the investigated parties was evident, where according to the judge's transcriptions they even use terms about having been identified by the opposing party, where alias [Name 252] even said -I'm already burned, my car has already been seen, I can't get too close- which, according to the transcriptions, refers to a whole planning and organization by the investigated parties. This remains fully linked with the event that we had already captured on our part as a methodology used by the investigated parties. Furthermore, in the month of March of 2020, the criminal judge again informed us about some communications from alias [Name 065] in which reference was made to another possible robbery, and in which, according to the extra-telephone transcription, [Name 001] gave some indications…\". The evidence in its entirety shows coherence, it is consistent, it supports one another, and that is why, with a degree of certainty, the facts are taken as proven\" [sic] (cfr. fs. 615 to 620 of the judgment). The preceding extract reflects the specific analysis that was carried out regarding the criminal responsibility of ([Name 016]) for the drug trafficking activity she was charged with, which, in the opinion of this Chamber, is limited and insufficient to displace any doubt that could arise from the reading and interpretation of the content of the communications considered. In the first conversation, identified with sequence number 0125419, [Name 050] asks the defendant to count the quantity of a good or object she has in custody; while in the second, he indicates to her that they are going to leave a \"vara\" for her, so that she receives it. We see, then, that the contacts, given the background that was outlined by the a quo regarding the link between ([Name 016]) and persons related to the criminal organization, are suggestive that the good or object they speak of has an illicit nature; however, they are not conclusive. As has been indicated, in the case of the crime of drug trafficking, the information generated from the interception of communications has an indiciary nature and requires other elements of proof to confirm it. For these reasons, in this case, with the intellectual foundation set forth in the judgment and the evidence considered, this Chamber deems that it is not possible to deduce that, in effect, the accused had disposition or the possibility of disposing of any of the prohibited substances referred to in Law No. 8204, and that for this reason she incurred in any of the typical verbs of numeral 58 of the referred law. The information gathered suggests it, but does not confirm it, beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that the accused related to other individuals who did have disposition over drugs for unauthorized use or who were linked to concrete drug trafficking actions does not imply that those circumstances automatically transfer to her or that they can be imputed to her. As has been indicated in other sections of this pronouncement, criminal responsibility is strictly personal, and therefore must be determined based on the concrete, proven actions of each accused person. Her relationship with or belonging to a criminal group clearly constitutes an indicator of relevance that must be analyzed in conjunction with the others, but this circumstance by itself is insufficient for the attribution of criminal responsibility in the terms in which it was carried out. Even this Court takes into consideration that the accused ([Name 016]) was linked to money laundering activities, which are clearly accredited—as will be analyzed further on—so that, in the absence of corroboration of the content of the communications, it would also be feasible to interpret that the interlocutors are conversing about money or another valuable object of interest to the criminal organization. Hence, this Chamber deems that the matter merits a new discussion. By virtue of the above, by majority, the ground is declared with merit; consequently, the declaration of criminal responsibility of the accused [Name 016] for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled, as well as the penalty imposed for said criminality, and a retrial is ordered for a new proceeding, by a different composition of the court of instance. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\nDISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.- With deep respect, I separate myself from the decision of the majority of this ad quem chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare the second ground of the appeal by the private defense of the accused ([Name 016]) without merit. Upon reviewing the judgment, I have been able to appreciate that the determination of the acts committed by [Name 016], constituting her co-authorship in drug trafficking, was preceded by an evidentiary analysis that went beyond the content of two intercepted telephone calls during the course of the investigation. Furthermore, from my point of view, the intellectual study carried out by the court is adequate, since the pieces of evidence were linked to one another, in accordance with the rules of sound human understanding. From folio 577 of the judgment, it can be appreciated that in order to gauge the content of the conversations where allusion is made to the events of December 5 and 24, 2019, the decision-making body had to carry out a very meticulous scrutiny of the evidence, which began with the link between [Name 016]'s brother and the criminal organization led by [Name 001]. To do so, it started from the content of police report number IP-297-EN18, where [Name 050] began to be associated with [Name 013], an accused who, as was proven, usually accompanied [Name 001] and was an active member of the drug trafficking organization.\n\nOn that occasion, the police referred to a custody and accompaniment that [Name 050] and [Name 004] provided to [Name 001] when he visited the Institutional Care Center formerly known as \"El Buen Pastor\" in Desamparados. However, the link that the court discovered between [Name 050], brother of [Name 016], and the accused ([Name 004]) is very relevant, as the latter was one of the persons credited with a preponderant role in drug trafficking, as set forth in facts 4.1, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36, and 4.37. In fact, in the tenth considering, letter A) of this resolution, this Criminal Sentencing Appeals Court unanimously dismissed the arguments made against the finding of guilt of ([Name 004]) as a co-perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking. When citing police report number IP-033-EN-19, the deciding body highlighted the link of [Name 050] with the defendants [Name 161] and ([Name 004]), managing to specify that the latter informed [Name 001] about the \"babies\" through [Name 004], based on report IP-320-EN-18, it having been demonstrated that said word corresponded to coded language for referring to packages of drugs – cocaine. Note how, little by little, and based on the analysis of evidence that was not solely two telephone calls, the court established the origin of the link of [Name 016] and her brother [Name 050] with the criminal organization, especially with the defendants [Name 001] and ([Name 004]). Now, the a quo refers to proven criminal acts of drug trafficking, based on report number IP-277-EN-19, which highlights that [Name 004] and his brother [Name 022] are active members of the criminal network together with their mother [Name 015], who were proven to have committed the acts of June 13, 2019, and November 21, 2019, both related to drug trafficking. It is relevant to add that, as developed in the judgment, [Name 050] was directly linked to [Name 004] on a date that is within the period of the charged acts, specifically May 16, 2019, when police surveillance corroborated that both defendants were together in the León XIII housing complex. The court assessed this based on report IP-261-EN-19. In addition, based on telephone traces, the link of [Name 050], brother of [Name 016], with other members of the criminal organization, known by their nicknames [Name 275] and [Name 075], was solidified. The contribution included in the ruling by the a quo, based on report IP-017-EN-20, is of great relevance, establishing that the leader of the criminal network, [Name 001], telephonically acknowledged his control over the activities of [Name 050], who in turn echoed that hierarchical relationship. To that end, the court transcribed the call containing the communication. The core of the charge on which ([Name 016]) was convicted revolves around the events of December 5 and 24, 2019, which, although they solely appear in intercepted calls during the investigation, were indeed validly credited. As has been indicated, what [Name 050] discussed with [Name 016] cannot be interpreted in isolation, but rather must be judged, as elaborated by the court, in light of the initial link of her brother [Name 050] with the criminal organization, the relationships between them under the leadership of [Name 001], as well as the materializations obtained from the convictions of [Name 001] and ([Name 004]). Thus, it is plainly evident that the events of December 5 and 24, 2019, can only be interpreted as drug trafficking actions by [Name 016] and her brother [Name 050], who were solely engaged in that during the investigation period, as proven in the judgment. Now, in the calls on those two dates in December 2019, it is clear that they discuss the storage and trafficking of drugs, because in addition it must be considered that the judicial body also directly linked [Name 016] with [Name 001], based on the analysis of another telephone communication, where she receives orders issued by [Name 001] through her, directed at her brother [Name 050], denoting that [Name 016] not only knows about the illicit business of drug trafficking, but actively participates together with her brother [Name 050]. Furthermore, the ruling also relies on testimonial evidence to complement the analysis, as it assessed the statement of investigator [Name 092], who, based on the facts known during the preliminary stage, determined that [Name 050] was indeed an active member of the criminal organization, giving as an example a \"tumbonazo\" that [Name 001] coordinated with [Name 050], and which was corroborated – materialized – by the San José Municipal Police, as on December 19, 2019, there was an incident where a person was approached by several subjects at a fake police checkpoint, which was precisely what [Name 050] planned telephonically with [Name 001]. As can be seen, the judgment links [Name 050] directly with [Name 001] executing actions typical of the criminal organization, in the same month as the two events for which [Name 016] was convicted, hence, as indicated, if [Name 050] was an active member of the network, he was linked to [Name 001], to [Name 004], and to ([Name 004]), it is clear that on December 5 and 24, 2019, when he coordinated with his sister [Name 016] by phone, it involved the illicit business of drug trafficking for which she was convicted. Therefore, my vote is to declare the second ground of the appeal by the private defense of the defendant ([Name 016]) without merit.-\n\nXXXI.\n\nThird objection in the appeal against judgment filed by Master Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense attorney for ([Nombre 016]). The appellant alleges erroneous application of Articles 69 and 83 through 92 of Ley 8204 of December 26, 2001. He argues that money laundering is an offense of connection or linkage with a prior criminal act, which must be attributed to a particular individual, but, furthermore, it is necessary that this individual \"has been tried and found responsible, with finality, for the crime (unless this has not been possible due to personal circumstances, grounds for exemption from punishment, in which case proof of the criminal wrong will suffice, provided this is not incompatible with the specific legislation of each country). Only when such direct imputation is not possible (whether because the perpetrator was not identified, because the perpetrator died, or because the criminal action was extinguished for certain reasons, excluding the statute of limitations for the criminal action), can such prior act be proven within the trial concerning money laundering\" (cf. f. 7321 vto.). He argues that while there are certainly modern trends that, instead of requiring the nexus with a serious predicate offense, deem the existence of \"criminal activity\" to be sufficient—thus making it possible for money laundering to be committed by the same perpetrator of the predicate offense—these are positions he considers erroneous because, in his view, they lead to an abusive application of the money laundering figure. The appellant argues that the willful intent necessary to prove the offense under analysis requires a prior conviction, so that the perpetrator knows the criminal origin of the money (cf. f. 7322 vto.). In this regard, he cites an excerpt from the work \"El Delito de Legitimación de Capitales\" by the national author Francisco Castillo. In addition to this, as established in numeral 3.c) i) of the Vienna Convention and numeral 6.1 b) of the Palermo Convention, the intent must be current, so that the acquisition of the asset, without knowing its illicit origin, equates to good faith and excludes the offense. He argues that, in this matter, it must be analyzed whether the kinship relationship existing between [Nombre 050] and the accused, or the sentimental relationship that once existed between her and [Nombre 001], as well as their child in common, are sufficient to prove the required cognitive element and the will to hide or conceal the origin of the assets. In this sense, the appellant points out that the court did not analyze the explanations and documentation provided by [Nombre 016] to justify how the questioned assets had been obtained, which would have made it possible to exclude the prosecution's hypothesis. He claims as a grievance that, had the evidentiary elements and the requirements established in the substantive law been correctly analyzed, reasonable doubt would have arisen and an acquittal would have been issued (cf. f. 7325).\n\nThe ground is declared without merit. The judgment found the following facts proven regarding the participation of the accused ([Nombre 016]): \"1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for receiving money from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: The storage and dosing of the drug shipments acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of the shipments to the various points of commercialization. The commercialization of drug shipments owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory. The commercialization of drug shipments owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug addicts, through properties that the organization held for \"Bunkers\" type purposes, as well as on public roads in the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking to employ various means for this purpose. 3. This drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal manner, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction: the commercialization of drugs and the group's safeguarding of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following [...] [Nombre 016]: member of the criminal structure, who among other functions assisted the accused [Nombre 050] in the tasks of storing drug shipments owned by the narco gang in her home, and was also another of the members whose role it was to facilitate the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in her name movable goods acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to make them available for the use and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group [...] 5.\n\nDuring the investigation period spanning from April 2018 through October 2020, the Criminal Organization comprised of the investigated individuals [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016], [Name 019], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, and transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001] […] 5.13 During the period spanning from January 2018 through October 2020, the charged individual identified as [Name 050], with the aim of inserting, diversifying, and layering the money derived from drug trafficking, recruited her sister, the accused ([Name 016]), for the purpose of having her serve as a front person (testaferro) to conceal the illicit origin of movable property, such as high-end vehicles, which were acquired by the criminal group with money derived from drug trafficking, an activity of which the accused ([Name 016]) maintained full knowledge. Among the vehicles registered in the accused's name are the following: A Volkswagen brand vehicle, Jetta MK6 style, license plate [Value 032], which holds a value of 9,022,000.00 (nine million twenty-two thousand colones); a BMW brand vehicle, X5 style, with a value of $37,930.00 (thirty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty dollars), money that was paid in cash at the agency Bavarian Motors CR S.A. by the accused on September 6, 2019; and a Ford brand vehicle, Ranger style, license plate [Value 034], valued at the sum of ¢15,000,000.00 (fifteen million colones) […] 6.13 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...] used by the accused [Name 016], the following result was obtained, and these items correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, blue with purple, with IMEIs 868139049562744 and IMEI 868139049586750, in fair condition, SIM card with a non-visible phone number. • A Huawei brand cell phone, gray, with no visible IMEI and a broken screen. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black, with IMEI 356017/07/356627/7, with its back broken. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gray, with IMEI 351712/10/099841/3 and IMEI 351713/10099841/1. • A total amount of cash in the sum of ¢3,321,000.00 (three million three hundred twenty-one thousand colones), and $60 (sixty dollars), money that was generated from the criminal activity of drug sales carried out by the accused ([Name 016]). • A Samsung brand cell phone, pink, with a broken screen, IMEI 3585518/08/872698/2 and IMEI 358517/08/872698/0. • A Samsung A10 brand cell phone, red, with IMEI 358100/10/833702/9. • A Huawei brand cell phone, model JKM-LX3, black, with two IMEI numbers, the first IMEI 866861049485004, the second IMEI 866861049520016, with a broken screen, in fair condition, with its 16GB Sandisk SD card, black, and Movistar SIM card serial 89506041010026535607. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, model JKM-LX3, with IMEI 865365042597741, with a black Adita brand 51)8613 card, with SIM card serial 8950604401712274511f, in fair condition. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, with two IMEIs, the first 865163044717965 and the second 865163044757979, in fair condition, with a white and red Claro SIM card with serial number 8950603018885859646F, without an SD card. • A non-lethal Glock-type 9mm pistol, serial 2016N061733, black, 35 gold-colored rounds with the legend Blazer 9mm Luger brand, two unfired 12-gauge rounds, Super X brand, Western. • A digital video recorder with serial number D63292428, white, with its respective power adapter\" (cf. folios 276 to 321 of the judgment). As is evident from the factual matrix transcribed and viewed in its entirety, the accused ([Name 016]) was attributed with having acted as a front person (testaferro) for the criminal group, specifically by consenting to the registration in her name of various movable assets acquired with money derived from drug trafficking activity.\n\nThe detail of the assets obtained in that manner was reconstructed in the judgment as follows: «[…] the profits from drug trafficking then allowed the accused [Name 016] to access the purchase of various vehicles which have been used in the commission of the crime, among them the BMW, X-5 model, license plate [Value 127], which here it should be clarified that in the charged facts the registration number was not indicated, but subsequently the prosecutorial body introduces that number, a circumstance that does not leave the accused defenseless since in the police reports and expert evidence she had been informed regarding that vehicle, make, characteristics and even the license plate number, so there is clarity that it was the same one; a vehicle that was registered in her name, which the court has corroborated is indeed the license plate that is definitively associated with said motor vehicle, since that vehicle was used by her brother, the co-defendant [Name 050], which was detailed in report IP-017-IP-EN-20, given that in a parallel case, identified with the unique number 23-000010-0515-PE (a proceeding being tried separately), a person identified with the name of [Name 053] was linked, in which an amount of money and jewelry was seized, with the dog used at that time testing positive for traces of drugs, a seizure that occurred when [Name 053] was traveling in the motor vehicle with license plate [Value 127], therefore said motor vehicle, according to the records seized and analyzed by the Money Laundering Section indicated in report 10-SLC-R-22 AMP I, CPA 15-21, was acquired at the company Bavarian Motors CR S.A., it registered as the buyer the co-defendant [Name 019], who paid an amount of ($40,000.00) forty thousand United States dollars, which is typical of ways to evade supervisory controls and thus conceal the rights held over the assets, since the vehicle is registered in the name of the accused [Name 016]; but also in report number Report No. 25-SLC-CI-20 C INV 63-19, regarding that same BMW, X5 model, year 2014, silver color, it has a contract value of USD $102,027.00, the cause of acquisition being for valuable consideration, with a registration date of September 6, 2019, and in public deed number one hundred forty-eight of the notaries public, Ana Rosa Soto Rivera, Jorge Javier León Longhi, and Bernardo Gómez Salgado, at 11:15 a.m. on August thirtieth, two thousand nineteen, it indicates that [Name 276], identity card [Value 156], an accountant, unlimited general power of attorney of the corporation Bavarian Motors CR Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number 3-101-5021521, and [Name 016], identity card [Value 006], a merchant, in which act the first appearing party sold to the second appearing party, who accepts, a B.M.W. brand automobile, X5, year two thousand fourteen, for the sum of thirty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty dollars (USD $37,930.00), paid in this same act at the cashier's desk of the BMW agency, data that appear in the digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 203] issued by the National Registry; the same circumstance occurs with the Volkswagen brand vehicle, license plate [Value 032], with report No. 25-SLC-CI-20, C INV 63-19, in which it is being reported that, through digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 204], it has a contract value of ¢18,700,000.00 (eighteen million, seven hundred thousand colones), so the cause of acquisition is for valuable consideration, with a registration date of July 30, 2019, and in public deed number one hundred sixteen of the notary public, Víctor Sánchez Céspedes, at 10:00 a.m. on July nineteenth, two thousand nineteen, it indicates that the corporation Purdy Motor Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number 3-101-005744, sold said motor vehicle to the accused [Name 016], for the sum of nine million twenty-two thousand colones (¢9,022,000.00); which is repeated regarding the Ford brand vehicle, Ranger model, circulation license plate [Value 034], year 2017, orange color, whose acquisition was analyzed in the same report referred to above, so according to digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 205], it indicates that the cause of acquisition was for valuable consideration, with a registration date of March 4, 2020, and in public deed number two hundred sixty-one, of the notary public, Alejandra Villalobos Meléndez, it is indicated that [Name 277], identity card [Value 157], a merchant, unlimited general power of attorney of the corporation Danelo D E Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number [Value 206], sold said motor vehicle to the accused [Name 016], stating on that occasion she was a merchant, paying for that motor vehicle the sum of fifteen million colones (₡15,000,000.00); in addition to these vehicles that are indicated in the accusatory pleading, the Money Laundering Section detailed others, among them the following: Vehicle with plates [Value 158], a Toyota Yaris E brand vehicle, registered in the name of [Name 016], on April 22, 2019, sold by Agencia Datsun S.A., it was indicated that the origin of the funds paid was the own funds of Mr. [Name 278], identity card [Value 159], who paid by deposit from Banco Bac San José, on March 26, 2019, the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS (USD $12,261.00), and who authorized the registration of the asset in the name of ([Name 016])\n\nso if we look between the year 2019 and 2020, the accused acquired four vehicles in her name, an unusual circumstance in the commercial dynamics of a person linked to drug trafficking activities, but even in Report No. 10-SLC-R-22 AMP I C PA 15-21, in table number 11, it is indicated that the accused ([Name 016]), in the period from April 3, 2018, to October 5, 2020, at the car sales agency identified as [Name 292], made the purchase of eleven vehicles, an unmistakable sign that the accused was engaged in this dynamic which corresponds to the figure of a front person (testaferro), since she lent her name for the acquisition of vehicles and thereby the concealment of asset rights, with money originating from drug trafficking\" [sic] (cfr.\n\nfs. 868 to 870 of the judgment). Regarding this evidentiary construction, the technical defense raised no objection. In any case, this Chamber observes that the judgment takes up the documentary evidence added to the case file to determine how the vehicle purchases were made, who was in charge of the payments, and the identity of the person who appeared as the registered owner, who is precisely the defendant ([Nombre 016]), without any inconsistency or error being verified in the analysis carried out. Now, the defense's divergence focuses on the fact that, in its opinion, it is not possible to establish that the money with which the assets were acquired originated from drug trafficking activity. On this point, this Chamber considers that the judgment makes an adequate approach, since it was established that the money came from drug trafficking activity and not from licit sources as the defense sought to prove. Note that the *a quo* links the defendant to the criminal activities carried out by her brother [Nombre 050], who is pending trial, but the truth is that the clearest connection presented is with [Nombre 001], the leader of the criminal organization. Thus, between that subject and the defendant ([Nombre 016]), there is the antecedent that they were romantic partners in the past and even had a child together, a situation that facilitated the defendant's approach to the criminal activities benefiting the first. And beyond that prior relationship, there is evidence that the aforementioned individuals maintained contact during the investigation period and that there were even coordinations between the two related precisely to the acquisition and registration of movable assets in the name of ([Nombre 016]). In that sense, the judgment highlights: \"*it is important to establish that said person, for a long time, has maintained* 4 of March 2020, therefore *a close relationship with [Nombre 001] since, as is known, they have a child together, however, beyond this relationship regarding their child, throughout the investigation it was established by the judicial police that [Nombre 016] maintained a relationship linked to criminal activities with [Nombre 001], the court even heard communications alluding to personal circumstances in which [Nombre 001] dialogued with [Nombre 016], but from them, it was denoted that she received money for personal matters and also for the acquisition of vehicles, an example of this is the following communication located in Volume V of the Case File of Transcriptions of the telephone interception: FTP Listening Record #155, folio 1347, from minute 00:02:35 to minute 00:03:07: '[Nombre 001] said - what do I do, do I send you that money, with whom? [Nombre 016] said - well I don't know, send it to me with anyone, [Nombre 001] said - but right now? [Nombre 016] said - well yes, [Nombre 001] said okay- give me a moment, [Nombre 016] said - okay and send me the car papers, [Nombre 001] said - but that's it, it's already in your name, you can just check the plate to see, [Nombre 016] said - okay -[Nombre 001] said- you don't even need the papers because it's not necessary since by just looking up the plate it comes up in your name, -[Nombre 016] said well but if I were to sell it or something they ask for them -[Nombre 001] said - oh no you don't need them, you just need the car to be in your name and for it to be free' (...), from this communication it is clear that [Nombre 001] maintained a dynamic of acquiring a vehicle, with [Nombre 016] being the one who, regarding her criminal participation, gave her name for the vehicle to be registered, thus concealing the rights to the asset, diverting attention and distracting the authorities from the true person who provided the money for the purchase, thereby causing a distortion of the socioeconomic order, because control over individuals' assets is lost*\" (cf. fs. 861 to 859 of the judgment). The previous communication, held between [Nombre 001] and ([Nombre 016]) —who is identified by her second name [Nombre 016]— corresponds to sequence 0261339, from April 4, 2019, which is prior to the acquisition of the movable assets alluded to in the accusation and judgment, since the Volkswagen vehicle, plate [Valor 047], was acquired on July 30, 2019; the BMW, plate [Valor 033], on September 6, 2019; and the Ford, plate [Valor 160], on March 4, 2020, so it cannot be directly related to any of these assets. However, the *a quo* rightly assesses that within the investigation period, the defendant was linked to the acquisition of at least eleven vehicles, which is an evident sample of a sustained mode of operating over time, in which the transcribed conversation makes complete sense, where [Nombre 001] informs ([Nombre 016]) that a vehicle is already registered in her name. On the other hand, regarding the BMW vehicle, model X-5, plate [Valor 161], several circumstances described in the judgment arise that must be revisited. The first is that, even though it appears registered in the name of the defendant ([Nombre 016]), the person who made arrangements at the agency Bavarian Motors CR. S.A. for its purchase was [Nombre 019]. As part of the comprehensive review of the summary proceedings, it could be verified that in the name of said subject appear various payment receipts in dollars and colones issued by the agency, which in turn are linked to cash deposit slips in dollars and colones, generated by various banking entities (cf. fs. 290 to 306 of the evidence case file). This fact is highly relevant because the defendant ([Nombre 019]) was linked in this same process to the acquisition of the Toyota vehicle, model Land Cruiser Prado TX-L, license plate [Valor 125], valued at ¢44,272,000.00, with money coming from drug trafficking. Thus, it was recorded in proven fact 5.6 and in the section identified \"*Facts related to [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 019]*\", visible from folio 835 to 860 of the judgment —reference is made for its reading to considerando XXVIII—. It is clear then that, although the vehicle is registered in the defendant's name, some payments were made by a third party, who in turn is linked to the acquisition of movable assets with money coming from drug trafficking, which constitutes an evident parallelism that adds to the accreditation of the illicit origin of the money with which vehicle plate [Valor 033] was acquired. Furthermore, during the investigation it could be established that the asset was used by her brother [Nombre 050], but also by another person identified as [Nombre 053], who was caught by the authorities while transporting ₡1,902,600 in cash and various pieces of jewelry in the vehicle. Additionally, during the inspection of the vehicle, a field test was performed that tested positive for drugs, suggesting that the asset was used to transport illicit substances. The description of [Nombre 053]'s conduct is recorded in the proven facts of the judgment from point 4.42 to 4.45. In addition to what has already been stated, and even though it was not included in the prosecutorial charges, the *a quo* determined, based on the evidence produced at trial, that the Toyota vehicle, plate [Valor 158], was also registered during the investigation period in the name of ([Nombre 016]). On this aspect, the judgment states: \"[…] *in addition to these vehicles that are indicated in the accusatory document, the section on money laundering (legitimación de capitales) detailed others, among them the following, Vehicle plates [Valor 158], a Toyota Yaris E vehicle, registered in the name of [Nombre 016], on April 22, 2019, sold by Agencia Datsun S.A., it was indicated that the origin of the funds paid was the own funds of Mr. [Nombre 278], identity card [Valor 159], who paid by deposit from Banco Bac San José, on March 26, 2019, the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS (USD $12,261.00), and who authorized the registration of the asset in the name of ( [Nombre 016])\"* (cf. f. 870 of the judgment). Regarding this last vehicle, the investigation allowed determining that it was used by [Nombre 268], alias \"[Nombre 269]\", who was linked to retail drug trafficking activity in criminal case No. 19-000160-062-PE.\n\nFrom the foregoing, it follows then that at least two vehicles registered in the name of the defendant [Nombre 016] during the investigation period were paid for by third parties, one of them accused and convicted of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) as a result of acquiring another vehicle through the same method, and another that was used by a person linked to drug trafficking.\n\nA clear and evident pattern can thus be deduced that the accused was only the registered owner of the assets, but the use and enjoyment of the movable property was carried out by third parties, which aligns with the role of front person attributed to her by the prosecution. In addition to the foregoing circumstances, the judgment also analyzes that the accused ([Nombre 016]) was in contact with the handling of significant amounts of money that, in turn, were related to her brother [Nombre 050], namely: «[…] *along this same line of argument we see how [Nombre 016] maintained a link with the leader of the organization and her brother, in drug trafficking actions and the safeguarding of money, another example is the following communication:* **From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0137789. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of telephone service [Valor 162]. This call was made at 8:28 p.m., on September 13, 2019.** [Nombre 050] *alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with a subject. [Nombre 065] said – [Nombre 280]. Subject said – Hello. [Nombre 065] said-* *Why don't you tell [Nombre 016] to pick up some money for me there at [Nombre 026]’s place, she sent it down there without counting it. Subject said – Well, I'll tell her to count it. [Nombre 065] said – Yeah, just have her put it away. Subject said – Okay.(…), as we can see from the previous communication, it is clearly about money that comes from drug trafficking actions and it is the accused [Nombre 016] who participated in that criminal organization contributing to the success of that activity* […] *in the following communication we observe how [Nombre 050] entrusts to [Nombre 016] what can be established as referring to some merchandise or money, it was indicated thus:* **From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0102661. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of telephone service** [Valor 105]**. This call was made at 2:29 p.m. on January 26, 2020** [Nombre 050] *alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with a female identified by the name of [Nombre 016], user of telephone line [Valor 105]. [Nombre 016] said – Well, I'm here, oh okay. [Nombre 065] said – Ah okay, you are at the edge, close the gate. [Nombre 016] said – Yes, okay. [Nombre 065] said – Listen, let no one know anything about this, not even [Nombre 026], not how much it is or anything, because no one knows I have that. [Nombre 016] said – No. [Nombre 065] said – Okay”. In the following communication they continue referring regarding [Nombre 016]:* **From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0102953. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of telephone service** [Valor 163]**. This call was made at 3:48 a.m. on January 27, 2020. “**[Nombre 050] *alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with an unidentified subject, user of telephone line [Valor 163]. Subject said – Hello. [Nombre 065] said – Playo. Subject said – Mjm. [Nombre 065] said – eh, you took the money, [Nombre 281]’s. Subject said – No, nothing. [Nombre 065] said – No, it's just that I, how strange. Subject said – Your sister has that, right. [Nombre 065] said – Just the grey bag. Subject said – Mjm. [Nombre 065] said – No, it's just that it's the grey bag with money. Subject said – No papi. [Nombre 065] said – In your room, right. Subject said – No. [Nombre 065] said – I'm going to check” (...), in the following communication the relationship with this communication and [Nombre 016] is detailed, let's see:* **From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0102966. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of telephone service** [Valor 105]**. This call was made at 4:53 a.m. on January 27, 2020.** [Nombre 050] *alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with a female identified by the name of [Nombre 016], user of telephone line [Valor 105]. Outside the phone, [Nombre 065] said – It doesn't matter I'll get guns, but he loses his life, that son of a bitch never answered. [Nombre 016] said – What. [Nombre 065] said – Mae, come to the house so you can check the cameras for a bit. [Nombre 016] said – So you can check them. [Nombre 065] said – Yes mae, don't you see I had five palos there and they were stolen from me. [Nombre 016] said – [Nombre 184] was carrying a yellow bag, didn't you send him to put it away at [Nombre 184]’s place. [Nombre 065] said – No, it was another thing. [Nombre 016] said – Mae, he didn't throw them in a bag, or anything. [Nombre 065] said – No, I already searched the house. [Nombre 016] said – Ah, I'm on my way.”,(…), it is therefore clear to identify, how [Nombre 016] was very trusted by her brother, to the point of having to corroborate a theft of money (“five palos”, a common term in Costa Rican Spanish to refer to millions), in this case five million, that belonged to the criminal organization, that reveals as we have been stating, the participation of the accused [Nombre 016] with the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001] […]» [sic] (cf. fs. 862 to 863, 866 to 867 of the judgment). Even during the raid carried out on her home, a significant sum of cash was seized, specifically ₡3,321,000.00, which then corroborates that in the previous communications they were indeed talking about money and not about an object of another nature. The foregoing is relevant because the defense questions that the money held by the accused has a lawful origin, specifically in the manufacture and commercialization of tortillas; however, these communications reveal that it was through her brother that she had access to large amounts of cash and not from the commercial activity alluded to.\n\nIn the case of [Name 050], material evidence was even obtained that links him to drug trafficking activity, to the handling of significant sums of money, and to the possession of high-value assets, given that in the search (allanamiento) carried out on October 13, 2020, at his residence located in [...] north sector, third house on the right, one story, black gates, evidence indicative of said activity was seized, specifically seventeen vacuum-sealed transparent plastic wrappers with marijuana-type drugs; in addition to other supplies related to drug dosage measurement, among them three electronic scales, packages, and rolls of bags. Also found were ₡1,808,500.00, a BMW vehicle, X5 model, year 2004, license plate [Value 049], valued at ₡37,307,660.00; a Toyota vehicle, Fortuner model, circulation license plate [Value 050], valued at $66,131.00 (cf. p. 3779 of the main case file). It is worth noting that the second of these vehicles was acquired through the intermediation of [Name 030] (cf. p. 181 of the judgment), who was attributed with one of his functions being the locating of front men (testaferros) for the criminal organization, to register in their name vehicles that were acquired to be placed at the disposal of the criminal organization, which thus reveals the dynamic and modus operandi of the organization with respect to the acquisition and use of assets. On the other hand, the judgment referenced various telephone communications in which it is evident that both ([Name 016]) and her brother remained alert to police presence or action, which is consistent with the illegality and clandestine nature of the actions they were carrying out: “From [Value 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0126694. The intervened telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Value 164]. This call was made at 06:03 hours, on September 4, 2019. [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” spoke with an unidentified male subject. Subject said – Aja papi. [Name 065] said – Alo. Subject said – Aja papi. [Name 065] said – Dígamela. Subject said – Mae este en todas porque este, un cuadrillon hay abajo. [Name 065] said – La bestia y todo. Subject said – Si. [Name 065] said – Conoce. Subject said – Van para abajo, este en todas, oyó. (…); following communication: From [Value 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0126696. The intervened telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Value 155]. This call was made at 06:08 hours, on September 4, 2019. [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” spoke with an unidentified female. Female said – Alo, alo. [Name 065] said – Alo. Female said – Que pasó hijo. [Name 065] said – A donde está. Female said – Aquí en la casa. [Name 065] said – Porque no le dice a [Name 284] que venga por una ropa. Female said – Papi esta todo el orga ahí, oyó. [Name 065] said – Si, ya (unintelligible) Female said – Donde [Name 033]. [Name 065] said – Donde cual [Name 033]. Female said – La del gordo. [Name 065] said – Aja. Female said – Donde [Name 283]. [Name 065] said – Bueno. Female said Ya le digo a [Name 284], [Name 284] que vaya por ropa (This she said to a male subject heard in the background.) [Name 065] said – Pero no les botaron a ellos. Female said – Ya sube ya sube. [Name 065] said Bueno.(…) from the context of the previous communications we see that [Name 050] is alerting other people about the arrival of the police and some type of operation or incursion, since he mentions “a la bestia” (as the judicial police's tactical or armored vehicle is known), indicating that it is necessary to “recojan la ropa”, terms associated with referring to narcotics, which means it is impossible to understand that someone would worry about the arrival of the police in a sweep looking for “clothing”, however, next we see how the accused [Name 016] on another occasion called her brother [Name 050] concerned about the police presence and tells him: From [Value 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0141611. The intervened telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Value 105]. This call was made at 21:45 hours, on September 16, 2019. [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]“ spoke with a female who identified herself with the name of [Name 016]. [Name 050] said – Aja. [Name 016] said - Alo. [Name 050] said – Dígame. [Name 016] said – Por donde viene. [Name 050] said – Porqué. [Name 016] said – Ah porque por aquí por donde, de acueductos para abajito hay una Yaris negra al lado y un Tiida abajo el otro. [Name 050] said – OIJ o la chusma. [Name 016] said – Es que no se si es OIJ o la chusma, no se están raros, hay una para arriba y una para abajo, parqueados de acueductos para abajo, en la oscuridad. [Name 050] said– Ah bueno voy para Escazú. [Name 016] said – Bueno.\n\n[Nombre 050] said–Alright.(…) which denotes that [Nombre 016] was indeed worried about the presence of the police and above all about what would happen to her brother, which is far from a person who has no relationship with drug trafficking or irregular activity, but that as analyzed in the section on the determination of that extreme, [Nombre 016] became fully involved in those activities, which is a reflection of her interaction between her, [Nombre 001], and her brother” [sic] (cfr. fs. 863 to 864 of the judgment). Clearly, an ordinary citizen, who adjusts their conduct to legality, would not present this level of alertness upon denoting that there is some ongoing police action around them. In this case, the indicted persons show concern, precisely because on their part actions are being carried out outside the law and therefore there is a fear of being discovered. It is important to highlight that the majority of this Chamber already pointed out that, regarding the activities inherent to drug trafficking, the analysis of the a quo was not conclusive regarding ([Nombre 016]); however, the transcribed communications are indeed relevant to contribute to the fact that ([Nombre 016]) acted with full knowledge and will of the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal organization led by her former romantic partner, hence her concern about the police presence in the vicinity of the area where she and her brother were. It is added to the foregoing that the defendant maintained telephone contact with [Nombre 001] even to receive orders from him and make them known to other members of the organization, which the judgment details as follows: “if we see in the following communication that interrelation occurs: From [Valor 165]. Call identified with sequence number 0259988. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone line [Valor 105]. This call was made at 09:45 hours on March 10, 2019. [Nombre 001] called [Nombre 016], from minute 00:00:43 to minute 00:00:55 I mention the following: [Nombre 001] said – tell [Nombre 004] [Nombre 124] not to let him go, right, they are arriving right now, [Nombre 016] said - did [Nombre 004] already come?, [Nombre 001] said – no they are arriving right now, but he and [Nombre 123] are in charge of watching over them. The conversation ends.” (…) if we see [Nombre 001] refers to her regarding the brothers [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022], two of the accused of greatest trust of [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 016] maintained that knowledge and direct relationship regarding them; in the same sense the following communication is denoted: From [Valor 097]. Call identified with sequence number 0218707. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 105]. This call was made at 17:45 hours on February 05, 2020. Sequence number System date and time 0218707 02/05/2020 05:45:23 p.m. [Nombre 001] alias “[Nombre 084]” made a call to [Nombre 016], user of telephone line [Valor 105]. [Nombre 016] said -hello, [Nombre 001] said -[Nombre 016] why don't you do me an urgent favor, why don't you tell “[Nombre 065]” to answer [Nombre 099], but urgent, urgent urgent, [Nombre 016] said -okay I'm going, [Nombre 001] said -for fa”(..); this communication makes even more sense with the following call: From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0103801. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 138]. This call was made at 22:03 hours on January 27, 2020 [Nombre 050] alias “[Nombre 065]” received a call from an unidentified female, user of telephone line [Valor 138]. From second 00:00:56, [Nombre 065] said – I'll check right now to see if I have some dollars there, it's that [Nombre 099] has to give me a thousand dollars” (cfr. fs. 864 to 865 of the judgment).\n\nFinally, the trial court’s ruling also detailed that the defendant ([Nombre 016]) did not present a licit source of funds to justify the acquisition of so many movable assets in such a short period, especially since some of these had high market values: «[…] having analyzed the economic profile of the convicted [Nombre 016] by the experts of the Capital Legitimization Section, which established that she was not a contributor to the C.C.S.S., on the Ministry of Finance website, specifically in the Taxpayer Identification System “SIC,” it was established that the accused here does not present nor has presented records of economic activities or tax obligations; furthermore, as part of the inquiries conducted, it was consulted whether she appears registered as an employer, and it was found that she does not appear registered as such and does not register any corporate participations (see point 5.15.1 of Report No. 25-SLC-CI-20 C INV 63-19); this means her financial profile is nonexistent to provide an explanation of the economic capacity to afford the purchase of that large quantity of assets […] to which is added the statement by the investigator of the Capital Legitimization Section [Nombre 225], who indicated: “[Nombre 016] is a relative of [Nombre 050], one of the high-ranking persons according to the narcotics section, a profile of the person was prepared, she had the highest amount of circumstantial evidence for capital legitimization due to the acquisition of assets in a short time, according to the purchase and sale deeds, there was data that large cash payments were being made, likewise the asset growth she maintained, one real estate property and 6 movable assets, 4 acquired during the investigation period, by the way these assets were documented in the police reports regarding the use by both her brother and by other members of the organization, she did not present economic activity in the Ministry of Finance nor salaried contributions in the CCSS” (…), these statements are joined by those of the judicial expert Elizabeth Segura González, who indicated: “regarding [Nombre 016], it is determined that she is used as a front person (testaferro), which is a methodology used in capital legitimization, the acquisition of assets is made, her as the owner, however based on the police reports it is determined that the use and enjoyment of the asset is not exercised by [Nombre 016], on the other hand, it is observed that amounts of money are paid mostly in cash and settling the asset payments in their entirety, it is for this reason that one determines that person as a front person (testaferro) figure before the organization” (…), all of which from the aforementioned statements demonstrates what the documentary evidence has been detailing, that in effect the accused ([Nombre 016]) was a fundamental link in the criminal structure of [Nombre 001], in support of her brother [Nombre 050] (who is being prosecuted in a separate case), lending her name for the acquisition of assets and placing them at the organization’s disposal, thereby distorting the socioeconomic order with her actions, as the expert Elizabeth Segura stated emphatically in the debate at the end of her testimony: “regarding [Nombre 016], she is given the figure of a front person (testaferro), she registered as the owner of several assets, making payments for the same, cash payments and transactions, and not being the one who used the assets» [sic] (cfr. fs. 871 to 873). The sum of all the elements indicated and which were set forth by the trial court in its ruling, in the opinion of this Chamber leads to a single possible conclusion, specifically that the defendant ([Nombre 016]) was in collusion with [Nombre 001], as the leader of the criminal organization, and with her brother [Nombre 007], in activities constituting capital legitimization, by lending herself to the registration in her name of high-value movable assets, acquired with money stemming from drug trafficking. Given the conclusiveness of the incriminating evidence, it is feasible to displace the defense theory, according to which the assets acquired by the defendant originate from a licit remunerative activity consisting of the manufacturing and sale of tortillas. Even admitting that this is a licit source of income for the defendant, the analysis carried out by the trial court on the origin of the money used to acquire the vehicles for which she was accused is not weakened. The trial court points out the following: «[…] although the exculpatory witness Mr. [Nombre 285], identification card [Valor 166], appeared in the debate and stated: “I know [Nombre 016] because I work in a car dealership, she has been a client for about 25 years, the car dealership is called [Nombre 292] and is located in San Sebastián, the first cars she bought were cars around one million three hundred or one million seven hundred, a down payment of about seven hundred and the rest financed, then she would give the car she was trading in as a down payment and the rest financed, we always place a lien on the vehicle in favor of [Nombre 292], when we received a vehicle in some cases if they are put in the name of Mr. [Nombre 292], if the client is trustworthy a power of attorney was made, with [Nombre 016], normally the vehicles we sold her, in some cases we received a power of attorney from her, normally it was she who made the payments. PUBLIC MINISTRY. The requirements we ask for when we finance a vehicle are a photocopy of the ID card and the car goes with a lien, as she has always been a good client, I do not know what she does for a living.(…), his contribution was not of the magnitude expected by the defense since it only served to ratify the same findings of the capital legitimization section's expert reports, which link [Nombre 016] to the purchase of a large number of vehicles, and it even suggests to us that in that negotiation, no major requirement was needed other than the buyer's identification card and the lien was constituted on the same vehicle, without the buyer having to provide reasonable justification for economic backing (credit subject), and thus the economic aim of the sales agency was not frustrated, which does not correspond to the rules of logic and experience in that type of contract […]» (cfr. fs. 869 to 870 of the judgment). As the trial court well detailed, the exculpatory evidence actually allowed for the verification of that pattern of constant vehicle acquisition by the defendant over time, without her having an economic profile that would allow it. The judgment was clear in detailing that only two of the defendants had records of licit remunerative activities, but not ([Nombre 016]), so there is no justification found that she could acquire assets of high economic value. On the other hand, the investigation carried out by the judicial police, which extended for more than two years, also did not allow documenting that the defendant carried out licit remunerative activities that would provide her with a cash flow with which she could acquire the assets in question. The trial court's analysis of the exculpatory evidence concludes with the following reference to the defendant's statement: «[…] however, despite the conclusiveness of the evidence referred to above, the court analyzed what was said by the accused in the exercise of her material defense, who tried to justify that her income came from her own activity, when she declared: “I want to reject the charges and clarify what I am being accused of, the only relationship I have with [Nombre 001] is a son who is going to turn 20, he has always been responsible, he helps me with the payments, the school through deposits, the cars I have acquired I have acquired them at a dealership, financed, I have been buying cars there for 20 years, regarding the money they found when they raided us, it is from a business we have, days before we had acquired the dough products, the lady who came to testify did not say that the 40 bags of dough were found at my house, here I have the invoices from before and after the raid, I want to ask you to present Mr. [Nombre 285], he is from the dealership where I buy the cars, maybe he can give you a better explanation of how I acquired the cars. LIC. VICTOR OBANDO.\n\nIt is a family business of homemade tortillas, my stepfather and I, my mother's brother-in-law participate, we have had the business for more than eight years, if I wish to offer the invoices as proof, [Name 001] sent me the money for the school, it was paid by bank deposits, he sent me the money with some young man and I took care of making the deposit, the vehicle deals were done at the [Name 292] agency, I offer this as a witness, I also had another car that was not bought there, but the gentleman died, when I sold it I bought another car, I had some money saved, later I went to an agency in Pavas and they gave me a Ford, they took it to a workshop but there was a shootout and it was detained\", (...), the court considers that indeed the accused could maintain a production and sale activity of tortillas, which even as is common is family-run and outside of commercial legality, however, we have not observed in the file any relationship of that activity with the findings of economic capacity for the purchase of the vehicles and the payments that the defendant made, in other words, there is no way to justify that as a product of the sale of tortillas one could afford in two years the purchase of eleven vehicles at the [Name 292] agency and the other three that are indicated in the accusatory piece, that is, in a period of approximately two years she acquired 14 vehicles, this does not correspond with logic, which is added to the fact that many of these vehicles were in use by the criminal organization, in addition to the fact that the financial profile of the accused ([Name 016]) demonstrates another reality, if we see, she only possesses account [Value 188] of the Banco Nacional in which she registered a total income of TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED NINETY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT COLONES WITH 43/100 (₡2,399,548.43) whose main item is \"Cash Deposits\" for a total amount of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTEEN COLONES (₡1,104,715.00), which was established in Table No. 19, point 5.1.11.2 regarding financial products of the accused, from report No. 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21, prepared by the expert Rodrigo Chaves Calvo, even these findings do not justify the excessive asset increase for the purchase of that quantity of vehicles, which would come to raise the respective questions, how and where do those resources come from, that if they were from the tortilla sales activity, it would have to be on the basis of a consolidated business, with ample logistics capacity in that type of products, with personnel in charge, a fleet of vehicles, suitable physical space for mass production, that would allow the payment of raw material products and salary expenses among others, but that additionally, said business would then allow it with the fruit of those earnings the purchase of these goods, all of which finds no logical justification, but furthermore no evidence was presented that would demonstrate it, beyond the invoices for the purchase of a small quantity of raw material for the elaboration of the tortillas, which gives the court the impression, rather corresponds to a small undertaking and not to the solidity or capacity for the acquisition of that quantity of goods, the truth is that it does not agree with the circumstances in the acquisition of the goods with high amounts of money and that according to logic and the rules of experience, her statement is not sustained, since the evidence against her is overwhelming and reflects that she remained linked to a criminal enterprise dedicated to drug trafficking and the material object of that figure is constituted precisely by the goods, hence for the particular case the accused could not shatter the evidentiary elements that point to her directly, that it is she who put her name for the purchase of goods during the time for the criminal organization and its use, all of which for the court has been absolutely overwhelming and therefore with certainty it has been confirmed that [Name 016], is a co-perpetrator responsible for a crime of Money Laundering\" [sic] (cf. pages 873 to 875 of the judgment). From the foregoing it is deduced then that the trial court assessed the defense evidence and indicated in a reasoned manner the reasons why it did not give rise to the emergence of a doubt in favor of the accused. Regarding what was indicated, this Chamber does not verify any error or deficiency, since it is consistent with all the evidentiary material presented at trial, viewed jointly, which does not allow reaching any other reasonable conclusion other than the establishment of criminal responsibility of the defendant ([Name 016]) for the acts constituting money laundering. Having clear all the foregoing account, with which the few procedural aspects referred to by the judgment in its claim are discarded, it remains to hear the substantive aspect invoked and which corresponds to the necessity or not that the predicate offense, in this case drug trafficking, has a final judgment. The wording of Article 69 of Law No. 8204 in force at the time of the accused and accredited acts, established: \"Shall be punished with a prison term of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts or transmits goods of economic interest, knowing that they originate from a crime that, within its range of penalties, can be punished with a prison term of four (4) years or more, or carries out any other act to conceal or cover up the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever conceals or covers up the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement or rights over the goods or their ownership, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its range of penalties can be punished with a prison term of four (4) years or more. The penalty shall be ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, when the goods of economic interest originate from any of the crimes related to the illicit trafficking of narcotics, psychotropic substances, money laundering, diversion of precursors, essential chemical substances and related crimes, conducts classified as terrorist, in accordance with current legislation or when the purpose is the financing of acts of terrorism and terrorist organizations\". For this crime to be configured, an illicit activity must previously be carried out that generates the money, goods or other type of values to be laundered. In the Costa Rican case, the legislator did not indicate particular illicit acts as predicates of money laundering, but rather opted for a generic formula, according to which it can be any crime that, within its ranges, contemplates a prison term of four years or more, that is, it must be a serious crime (see Articles 1 in fine of Law No. 8754 and 2.b of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime). Despite the foregoing, this illicit act contains its own material wrong that is independent of the predicate illicit activity and therefore it is contemplated as an autonomous criminal type, hence its punishability does not depend on whether the perpetrator or participant in the predicate offense has been punished. On this matter, this Court makes its own the criterion expressed by the Third Chamber in Resolution No. 2016-00808, at 09:58 hours on August 5, 2016, in which it indicated: \"V. [...] Effectively, this Chamber shares the criterion of the appealed judgment, insofar as the objective element of money laundering requires that the goods come from a prior crime (punishable by four or more years of imprisonment); but it does not require a prior criminal conviction (folio 6196 back).\n\nThat is, the verification of a prior unlawful act (acción ilícita) that gives rise to said assets is required, but this can be done in the very judgment that tries the money laundering (legitimación de capitales). This being so, by verifying therein the existence of that serious crime (understood as one punishable by four or more years of imprisonment) and its generative link with the assets, the objective elements of Article 69, transcribed above, are fully satisfied […]» (emphasis supplied). In the case before us, as has been noted, the a quo correctly held that it was proven that the criminal organization subjected to prosecution had as its principal activity drug trafficking, which was conducted on a medium scale, through supply to other criminal organizations for distribution to third parties. For the aforementioned unlawful act, criminal liability was declared against [Name 029], who was in charge of transporting and delivering the shipments, which generated an economic consideration of approximately ₡5,100,000 per kilogram of cocaine, which constitutes the source of the illicit capital of the organization. Criminal liability for said criminal activity was also declared against [Name 001], who acted as the leader of the structure and, therefore, is the architect of all criminal activity. By virtue of the foregoing, in the opinion of this Court, the a quo properly established the existence of the preceding unlawful act in this very matter, from which the illicit capital that other defendants, among them ([Name 016]), were responsible for laundering, derives. Based on the considerations set forth, it is determined that the defects claimed by the appellant are not present, and for that reason, it is appropriate to declare without merit (sin lugar) the third ground of appeal raised by Master Manuel Soto Aguilar, in favor of the accused ([Name 016]).\n\n**32. Fifth ground of the challenge filed by Master Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense counsel for ([Name 016]).** He alleges «Erroneous legal-intellectual reasoning in setting the penalty (sanción)». Technical defense counsel alleges disregard of Article 71 of the Criminal Code and section 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which resulted in a lack of reasoning of the judgment regarding the imposition of the criminal penalty. In support, he cites ruling No. 315-2021 of April 15, 2021, from the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. He argues that, although the penalty imposed does not depart from the minimum imposable term, this circumstance did not exempt the a quo from properly justifying that penalty, in the terms indicated in section 142 of the procedural code. He indicates that the reasoning for the penalty in this case was «meager», since it is limited to referring to the size of the criminal organization and its operation for at least 30 months. The court does not mention, however, the resocializing purpose of the punishment and instead makes a reference, which he deems incomprehensible, to the «degree» of culpability. He adds that, specifically, regarding ([Name 016]), she is reproached for the large number of high-economic-value vehicles she acquired, as she is considered a front person (testaferro) for the organization (cf. p. 7336 front). She is also reproached for lending her home for drug storage and for having followed her brother’s steps by joining the criminal organization. However, Master Soto Aguilar notes the absence of consideration of the accused’s condition as head of household, who alone faces the upbringing of three minor children and another aged 19 who depends economically on her. After another extensive jurisprudential citation (whose identification is not referenced in the appeal), the appellant states that the penalty «is completely detached from the basic reasoning that must be attended to by legal mandate at the moment of its imposition; the judges were content with sketching out a light and vague wording riddled with routine phrases» (p. 7339 rev.). **The ground is granted.** Due to the remand ordered for a new hearing of the facts related to drug trafficking, it is decided by majority that no ruling on the penalty for said criminal activity is appropriate. With respect to the penalty of 10 years of imprisonment established for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), it is observed that it corresponds to the minimum provided for the crime of drug trafficking. By virtue of the foregoing, even though the reasoning set forth to support the penalty is extremely limited and does not fully encompass all the aspects described in section 71 of the Criminal Code, such that in principle no grievance would be caused to the defendant, the truth is that the appeal alludes to alleged conditions of vulnerability that the accused presents and that were not evaluated. Indeed, the judgment does not make any approach to said circumstance, even when the Social Work and Psychology report number NUE 23-000453-0725-TS, concerning the accused [Name 016], appended at folios 4565 to 4569, volume IX, of the investigative file, offered for those purposes, is included as admitted evidence. The omission detected could not be substituted by this Court, because it involves the evaluation of an evidentiary element in a single instance, which could not be discussed in another procedural stage, with the breadth provided for by section 8.2.h of the American Convention on Human Rights. By virtue of the foregoing, **the ground is granted** and the penalty imposed on ([Name 016]) for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is annulled. Remand for trial is ordered for a new hearing on this point, in which the principle of non-reformation in peius must be respected and the evidence offered by the defense in favor of the defendant must be considered.\n\nJudge Escalante Quirós notes that, in view of having issued a dissenting vote in the preceding recital and having declared the second ground of the appeal filed by the private defense of the accused ([Nombre 016]) without merit, he dissents and considers that the fifth argument of the challenge made by the same representation of ([Nombre 016]) must be expressly resolved.\n\n**Sole ground of the appeal filed by Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of the accused ([Nombre 004]).** Alleges \"Disagreement with the assessment of the evidence.\" Considers that an error was committed by insufficiently assessing the evidence presented by the defense. Points out that in the call with sequence 0060281, within the conversation it is said that money was given to her client, but the amount is not indicated, nor its origin. States that the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime of drug transportation was overlooked, since possession of drug caches by her client was never materialized. Highlights that the court based its decision on the interpretation of some transcripts, according to which a supposed system of informal loans and currency exchange was mentioned, which was considered coded language to refer to illicit activities. Argues that the evidence presented is insufficient, lacks technical rigor, and does not demonstrate the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Details that the appeal is based on the absence of sufficient and valid evidence that clearly and precisely demonstrates her client's participation in the crimes charged. Alleges that the judgment presents serious deficiencies in the appreciation of the evidence, which led to the conviction of the defendant, without regard for due process and the principle of innocence. Regarding the grievance, states that the absence of adequate intellectual reasoning with respect to the testimonial and documentary evidence led to an illegitimate conclusion contrary to the principle of derivation, because it was determined that the accused committed the acts charged. Argues that there was an erroneous interpretation of the facts and a lack of correlation between the accusation and the judgment, since the accused was convicted based on facts that were not adequately individualized, nor described in the accusation. Considers that in this case, the provisions of Article 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) were violated, according to which there must be a clear, precise, and detailed account of the act.\n\nHighlights that the circumstances of time, place, and manner in which the accused allegedly participated in the illicit activities were not clearly specified, which generated a state of defenselessness. Adds that \"the lack of justification in the assessment of the evidence, which must be clear and consistent with the established facts, constitutes a defect in reasoning that has affected my client's right to defense.\" Considers that it has not been sufficiently or reasonably explained how the conclusion regarding the accused's criminal responsibility was reached. States that this error in the assessment of the evidentiary elements led to the imposition of a 24-year prison sentence, to the detriment of her client's liberty. Concludes that there was a violation of due process, derived from the improper assessment of the evidence, which has resulted in a ruling that does not correspond with the principles of legality and presumption of innocence. Requests the judgment be annulled and the accused be acquitted; alternatively, requests a retrial. In this latter case, petitions that the defendant's release be ordered, since the pretrial detention measure was imposed as a consequence of the conviction. **First ground of the appeal filed by ([Nombre 004]), in exercise of his material defense.** Alleges \"Disagreement with the assessment of the evidence.\" Outlines that from folio 647 of the judgment, the lower court (a quo) described the reasons why it considered him responsible for the drug trafficking activity. Considers that the expressed reasoning lacks elements that demonstrate or materialize the communications captured through the ordered interceptions, which constituted the only indication used as the basis for the conviction. Cites resolution 2004-1408 of the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) related to the assessment of circumstantial evidence. Considers there is no full verification of the act from the content of the telephone interceptions, which allow for various interpretations, not just one as established in the judgment, and on the other hand, the gravity, precision, and concordance of the indicator fact are absent, because a single call is not sufficient to attribute criminal responsibility to him, coupled with the fact that the content of the communications is colloquial and does not allow, together with other evidence, to derive that they involve contacts related to illicit activities. Requests that the indications be declared ambiguous and that the appropriate decision be made. As a grievance, details that he was sentenced to a prison term in a judgment based solely on ambiguous indications. Requests the judgment be annulled and the cause be remanded for trial; also requests his immediate release. **Third ground of the appeal filed by ([Nombre 004]), in exercise of his material defense.** Claims \"Disagreement with the legality of the voice identification (reconocimiento de voz) that the Court performed on me at trial.\" Details that the judgment verifies that the lower court (a quo) performed a voice identification on him in open court and compared it with that of the interlocutor of the call identified with sequence 0060284 and reached the conclusion that it was the same, on which it bases part of the narcotics trafficking crime. Alleges that the requirements of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) for performing the voice identification were not followed, as the rule states that the proceeding must be recorded in an official report (acta) and that the rules for the identification of persons must be followed. Rebukes that the lower court (a quo) said nothing regarding the legality of the act and also did not prepare any official report (acta), much less follow the corresponding procedure, for which reason he requests that, by way of a protest for defective procedural activity, the voice identification act performed by the lower court (a quo) be annulled, for not following the procedure established in the procedural regulations. Regarding the grievance, indicates that a voice identification was used as the basis for the judgment without meeting the requirements that legitimize the act. Requests the nullity of the voice identification and all derivative evidence; also, requests that a retrial be ordered. **The grounds are declared without merit.** The defendant ([Nombre 004]) was declared the responsible perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking in its aggravated form, for which a sentence of 10 years in prison was imposed, based on the following facts: \"*1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], [Nombre 033], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily La Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: The storage and dosage of the drug caches acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of the caches to the various marketing points. The marketing of drug caches owned by the criminal group to other narco-gangs based in the national territory. The marketing of drug caches owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug addicts, through the properties held by the organization for such purposes, 'Bunker' type, as well as on the public roads of the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking to employ various means for that purpose. 3. This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction, the marketing of drugs and the group's protection over the territories in which they conducted the illicit activity.*\"\n\nAs indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows […] [Name 004]: Member of the criminal group, who, according to the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group, was responsible for collecting and safeguarding money originating from the illicit drug trafficking (tráfico ilícito de drogas). Likewise, the accused ([Name 004]) had the function within the group of carrying out any logistical (logística) action assigned to him by the higher-ranking members […] 4.26 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] and [Name 029] recruited the accused [Name 004], so that during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, he would perform functions inherent to the logistics (logística) of the criminal organization, which were entrusted for the security of the criminal group through surveillance, security, and the storage of money proceeds from drug trafficking, actions for which the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.27 On September 1, 2019, the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004] by telephone to appear at a banking institution in the Plaza Lincoln Shopping Center in Moravia and make deposits of money proceeds from the trafficking and sale of narcotics into third-party accounts, money that was also intended to be introduced into the national financial system through the acquisition of high-value assets. 4.28 On February 13, 2020, at 7:01 p.m., the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004] by telephone to collect the money generated from the drug trafficking activity at different points in the León XIII neighborhood, as well as from the illegal money lending activity carried out by the criminal group to third parties with money proceeds from drug trafficking. 4.29 On February 13, 2020, at 8:59 p.m., the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004] by telephone to collect the money generated from the drug trafficking activity at different points in the León XIII neighborhood, as well as from the illegal activity of informal money lending carried out by the criminal group to third parties with money proceeds from the trafficking and sale of narcotics\" (sic. Cf. fs. 276 to 291 of the judgment). From the foregoing account of facts, it follows that the accused ([Name 004]) was essentially attributed with (i) logistical (logística) functions related to the security of the criminal group and (ii) the storage of money. In addition to the above, he is mentioned in three specific events that occurred, the first on September 1, 2019, and the remaining two on February 13, 2020. As will be discussed, the participation of [Name 004] [Name 004] as a co-perpetrator (coautor) of the crime of drug trafficking was proven based on his intervention in the role of providing security to the criminal group, but not with respect to the storage of money. In this vein, it should be emphasized that, although the trial court deemed all of the facts outlined above to be proven (with which Judge Escalante Quirós agrees and details in his respective dissenting vote (voto salvado)), the majority of this Tribunal considers that there are deficiencies in the intellectual reasoning that must be declared regarding the facts located in points 4.27, 4.28, and 4.29, because the evidence considered by the a quo does not prove the circumstances described therein. With respect to the first fact, located on September 1, 2019, it is detailed that [Name 029] instructed his brother ([Name 004]) to \"make deposits of money proceeds from the trafficking and sale of narcotics into third-party accounts,\" through a banking institution in the Plaza Lincoln shopping center. The proof of that fact arose from the following communication: \"From [Valor 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0026740. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 149]. This call was made at 1:55 p.m. on September 1, 2019. [Name 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with a subject who identified himself as the brother of [Name 029] alias \"[Nombre 083].\" The conversation yielded data of interest up to second 00:00:55 where [Nombre 083] said – Diay to exchange. Brother said – Dude but where to, the banks are closed. [Nombre 083] said – In the Lincoln. Brother said – In the Lincoln. [Nombre 083] said – Yes, that's where we go. Brother said – Mmm dude. [Nombre 083] said – No no, otherwise I'm going to tell this guy to find someone.\n\nBrother said – Okay. [Nombre 083] said – Okay dude. Call ended\" (cf. f. 652 of the judgment). From the above, it follows that ([Name 004]) had to \"exchange\" money—which seems consistent with the currency conversion carried out by [Name 029] through third parties—; however, at no point in the conversation, at least in the passage recorded in the judgment, is the deposit of money into third-party accounts discussed. A similar situation occurs with the next event, located temporally at 7:01 p.m. on February 13, 2020, wherein it is indicated that [Name 029] instructed ([Name 004]) to \"collect the money generated from the drug trafficking activity at different points in the León XIII neighborhood, as well as from the illegal money lending activity carried out by the criminal group to third parties\" [sic]. In order to prove this fact, the trial court assessed the following intercepted communication: \"From 355415070501490. Call identified with sequence number 0064058. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 149]. This call was made at 7:01 p.m. on February 13, 2020. Sequence number System date and time 0064058 02/13/2020 07:01:45 p.m. [Name 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with a subject who has been identified as the brother alias \"[Nombre 083]\", user of telephone line [Valor 149]. Brother said – Hello. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Are you at home. [Nombre 083] said – No. Brother said\n\n– How much does he have to pay in biweekly interest. [Nombre 083] said – Twenty. Brother said – Twenty. They continue talking about topics of no interest to the investigation until second 00:00:28 where [Nombre 083] said – Of the other sixty. Brother said – Ah. [Nombre 083] said – The other sixty. Brother said – Yes, but he hasn't told me anything, who the other one is. [Nombre 083] said – Eh, neighbor, that I told you to write down. Brother said – The neighbor, neighbor, eh I have three hundred written down for a neighbor. [Nombre 083] said – That's the one. Brother said – Ah then I'll put that down as the neighbor. [Nombre 083] said – Ah. Brother said – I'll take another sheet and put neighbor, but that's per month. [Nombre 083] said – Yes. Brother said – Sixty per month, okay. They continue talking about topics of no interest to the investigation until the end\" [sic]. (Cf. f. 653 of the judgment). From this conversation, the first thing that must be noted is that it is not possible to infer that ([Name 004]) was collecting money from drug trafficking, as no mention is made of this aspect. Now, regarding the collection of money from loans, the information derived is not, in and of itself, conclusive, as it consists simply of the instruction from [Name 029] to his brother to make some collections, but it is not clear, with any certainty, what action the latter might have taken based on that instruction. In this sense, based on the content of the conversation, the majority of this Chamber considers that it would not be possible to discern whether they are talking about a loan, a fractional payment for the sale of some asset, or the collection of profits from an illicit business. The third event, located on February 13, shortly after the previous one, that is, at 8:59 p.m., once again alludes to [Name 291] instructing his brother \"to collect the money generated from the drug trafficking activity at different points in the León XIII neighborhood, as well as from the illegal activity of informal loans.\" The intercepted communication that was considered to prove that event is the following: \"From 355415070501490. Call identified with sequence number 0064311. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 149]. This call was made at 8:59 p.m. on February 13, 2020. Sequence number System date and time 0064311 02/13/2020 08:59:18 p.m.\n\n[Nombre 029], alias \"[Nombre 083]\", spoke with an identified individual who would be the brother, alias \"[Nombre 083]\", user of the telephone line [Valor 149]. [Nombre 083] said – Hello. Brother said – He's at the house. [Nombre 083] said – No. Brother said – Man, I was thinking, how much do you charge, those twenty are per month. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Too cheap, man. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Too much. [Nombre 083] said – Yes. Brother said – You're not making a damn thing, buddy. [Nombre 083] said – Well, it's better that way. Brother said – No, no, at least, at least it has to be thirty. [Nombre 083] said – Damn. Brother said – Thirty, thirty, just imagine your mother-in-law charges twenty just per fortnight. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Imagine, you're going to lend ten grand, they charge fifty per month per hundred thousand. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Imagine, it's just that lalo, lolo just came by here right now to tell me the neighbor also wants to see if, so I should let you know, I'll do it and you already tell him the amount, he tells me yes. [Nombre 083] said – Ah, but obviously they make something. Brother – Ah. [Nombre 083] said – So they can make something more, above all, man. Brother said – That's why, but, but. [Nombre 083] said – What I need is to receive the one hundred thousand per month. Brother said – Yes, I understand, I understand but you can get something more, like I tell you, charging ten more, I mean, nothing happens, it's thirty bucks and you're not breaking people like this female. [Nombre 083] said – Yes, what a shame [sic]. (cf. pp. 653 to 654 of the judgment). From this communication, what is inferred is a disagreement between the brothers ([Nombre 029] and [Nombre 004]) over the amounts that [Nombre 029] charged third parties, because [Nombre 004] considered they were low amounts. However, the majority considers that it is not possible to infer that the conversation refers to money produced by drug trafficking. It appears that the record relates to that recorded for the previous event, in which interest amounts were being discussed, but the fact is that it does not provide sufficient information to deduce what specific action ([Nombre 004]) would have carried out. By virtue of the foregoing, the majority of this Chamber concludes that the accreditation of those events relating to the indicted person's contribution through the storage of money from the organization does not stem from the evidence that was analyzed in the judgment. Apart from what has already been indicated, the first-instance ruling only takes up communications with sequence numbers 0060281, from 17:54 on January 29, 2019; 0060284, from 17:55 on January 29, 2019; 0060284, from 18:52 on January 29, 2019, all from the telephone line [Valor 077], from which the loss of approximately ₡200,000 of the money that, at that time, was in the custody of [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] is inferred. Regarding ([Nombre 004]), the only thing reflected is that he would have delivered a bag of money to alias \"[Nombre 083]\", which verifies that he knows this latter individual, but none of the conduct charged to him is accredited. Now then, with respect to the security functions, this Chamber unanimously considers that the evidence recorded in the judgment does allow for the inference that ([Nombre 004]) integrated himself into the criminal organization to carry out, jointly with the other defendants, security and custody tasks. As has been indicated throughout this pronouncement, based on the evidence introduced at trial, the trial court established an entire logistics system developed by the members of the criminal organization, directed mainly at providing custody and personal security to its leader, that is, to [Nombre 001], when he traveled on public roads, in order not to be surprised by the authorities and so that the means of transport he used were not known — an issue that was extensively addressed when reviewing the legal situation of the brothers ([Nombre 014], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022]) and of [Nombre 010], in recitals XV and XXI of this pronouncement, to which reference is made —. In that context, the evidence that was assessed by the trial court, in effect, allows for the conclusion that the defendant ([Nombre 004]), alias \"[Nombre 258]\", participated in those activities. In this regard, it is stated: \"In the transfers of Mr. [Nombre 001], [Nombre 004] participated on many occasions, fulfilling the functions of keeping the members alert to police presence.\" (cf. p. 987 of the judgment). Now then, in support of that task, it is stated: \"it must be borne in mind that [Nombre 004] is also accused of performing functions typical of the logistics of the criminal organization, which were directed at the security of the group, functions which he fulfilled completely and are deemed proven through the following calls: 'From [Valor 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0003178. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 150]. This call was made at 17:13 on June 11, 2020.\n\nAlias \"[Nombre 258]\" received a call from [Nombre 013], alias \"[Nombre 124]/[Nombre 124]\", user of the telephone line [Valor 150]. They begin by discussing irrelevant aspects, until minute 00:16:16, [Nombre 004] said – they took down the license plates, [Nombre 258] said come down the main road, all clear below, I am right on the corner down below, everything is clear, [Nombre 004] said – I'm on my way, I'm going by the little mine, all good here by the little mine, [Nombre 258] said – come on, come on, I already see you, I'm going to the one, I'm going to the one, [Nombre 004] said – yes, head to the one, [Nombre 258] said – man, what a bummer, there's a shitload of cars, take it easy, take it easy, [Nombre 004] said – go for it, [Nombre 258] said – I'm going up to the one and the one looks clear, [Nombre 004] said – all good on the one and all, ok, I'm on my way, [Nombre 258] said – the one is clear clear clear, there's not a damn thing up ahead, go go, I just saw \"[Nombre 083]\", [Nombre 004] said – yes, \"[Nombre 083]\" is there, damn it, yes they took down the license plates, [Nombre 258] said – go go go, [Nombre 004] said – yeah I'm already here (unintelligible), [Nombre 258] said – I already see you, [Nombre 004] said – they seriously took down the license plates. From [Valor 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0003173. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 099]. This call was made at 16:39 on June 11, 2020. Alias \"[Nombre 258]\" received a call from [Nombre 161], alias \"[Nombre 083]\", user of the telephone line [Valor 099]. [Nombre 258] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 225] said – watch out, [Nombre 258] said – ah, [Nombre 225] said – we need to watch out, [Nombre 258] said – okay, [Nombre 225] said – go for it. From [Valor 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0003178. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 150]. This call was made at 17:13 on June 11, 2020. Alias \"[Nombre 258]\" received a call from [Nombre 013], alias \"[Nombre 124]/[Nombre 124]\", user of the telephone line [Valor 150].\n\nThey begin talking about irrelevant matters, until minute 00:16:16, [Name 004] said -they took their plates off, [Name 258] said -come down the main road, everything is clear below, I'm at the very corner down below, everything is clear, [Name 004] said -here I go now, I'm going by the little mine, everything's fine here by the little mine, [Name 258] said -come on, come on, I saw you, I'm heading to the one, heading to the one, [Name 004] said -yeah, take the one, [Name 258] said -man, damn, there's a shitload of cars, take it easy, take it easy, [Name 004] said -take it, [Name 258] said -I'm going up to the one and the one looks clear, [Name 004] said -the one is all good and everything, ok, here I go, [Name 258] said -the one is clear clear clear, there's not a damn thing going up, go go, I just saw \"[Name 083]\", [Name 004] said -yeah, \"[Name 083]\" is there, damn, they really took their plates off, [Name 258] said -go go go, [Name 004] said -yeah, I'm here now (unintelligible), [Name 258] said -I saw you, [Name 004] said -they really took their plates off for real\". It can be seen in the first two calls how [Name 004] alias \"[Name 258]\" talks with [Name 013] and confirms to him that both he and [Name 161] alias \"[Name 083]\" had been accosted by the police and had the license plates removed from the motorcycles they were driving, a situation that was confirmed by the judicial police and recorded in police report IP-138-EN-20 extension in the following manner: \"…in said communication it was reflected how ([Name 013]) made reference to whether they took their plates off, this because the Public Force officers carried out an intervention in the afternoon hours, resulting in two motorcycles being detained, the same that were driven by ([Name 004]) and [Name 161]…\" (page 14 of police report IP-138-EN-20 extension). The section of the report that mentions the police stop carried out on [Name 004] and [Name 161] contains illustrative photographs of both the faces of the accused and their identity documents, which comes to confirm the direct link of [Name 004] with the remaining members of the criminal group, but furthermore confirms the use and possession of the cellular service that was attributed to [Name 004]» [sic]. (cf. folios 654 to 656 of the judgment). The information emanating from the communications recorded in the judgment that reliably place ([Name 004]) as one of those in charge of providing information on the state of the roads and the places through which the members of the criminal organization traveled, was reinforced by other records that account for the level of trust and closeness that ([Name 004]) had with other defendants: «The link between [Name 004] and the operational logistical tasks of the criminal group was more than confirmed by the analysis of the following calls: \"From 352016076063783. Call identified with sequence number 0247467. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 149]. This call was made at 15:03 hours on March 10, 2020. [Name 013] alias \"[Name 124]/[Name 124]\", made a call to [Name 258], user of telephone line [Value 149]. They begin talking about irrelevant matters until minute 00:04:25, [Name 004] said -leave right away, [Name 258] said -all right all right, [Name 004] said -man, when those guys leave and take off and everything, you close up, [Name 258] said -I'll close up, all good, [Name 004] said -make sure the one below is all good, [Name 258] said -ok ok ok, the things are inside, [Name 004] said -close everything up, make sure everything in the house is all good, that the guys all take off, that they don't take anything, [Name 258] said -ready ready, they continue talking about irrelevant matters. From [Value 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0001748. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 150]. This call was made at 18:43 hours on May 17, 2020. [Name 258] received a call from [Name 013] alias \"[Name 124]/[Name 124]\", user of telephone line [Value 150]. [Name 258] said -hello, [Name 004] said -tell me what happened, [Name 258] said -get on whatsapp you dumbass so I can show you the photos man. From [Value 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0002590. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 099]. This call was made at 18:14 hours on June 02, 2020. Alias [Name 258] received a call from [Name 161] alias \"[Name 083]\", user of telephone line [Value 099]. [Name 258] said -hello, [Name 225] said -where's the motorcycle at, [Name 258] said -which motorcycle, [Name 225] said -the blue one man, [Name 258] said -down there man, [Name 225] said -why are you such an idiot, you know I'm going to leave with this and you leave it there, [Name 258] said -oh man, you asshole, I had forgotten about it. From [Value 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0002995. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 150]. This call was made at 13:22 hours on June 09, 2020. Alias \"[Name 258]\", received a call from [Name 013] alias \"[Name 124]/[Name 124]\", user of telephone line [Value 150].\n\n[Nombre 258] said -hello, [Nombre 004] said -where are you, [Nombre 258] said -at my house, [Nombre 004] said -come on man, there are things to do man, [Nombre 258] said -how are there things to do, if you didn't tell me anything, I don't know, [Nombre 004] said -come on come on man\" (sic. Cf. pp. 656 to 657 of the judgment). The records transcribed above show that ([Nombre 004]) interacts with two of the defendants closest to [Nombre 001], since they were people who accompanied him at different times, for example, on visits to his romantic partner at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center or while he was traveling on the road, avoiding police presence and even serving as intermediaries with the other defendants. By virtue of the foregoing, the conclusion that the lower court (a quo) derived from the examination of the evidence is acceptable: \"Beyond any doubt it is clear that [Nombre 004] had full knowledge of the criminal activity by this structure […] Thus, and with the evidence being entirely consistent with respect to [Nombre 004], it is concluded that the facts held as proven against him position him as an active member of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001]\" (cf. pp. 657 to 658 of the judgment). Now, the trial court classified the criminal participation of ([Nombre 004]) as co-authorship (coautoría) in aggravated drug trafficking. Even though it was noted above, by majority, that not all the actions attributed to the defendant were duly accredited, this does not generate any impact on the determination of his criminal liability at the level of co-authorship (coautoría). As established in considerando XXI —to which reference is made for greater detail—, co-authorship (coautoría) is a form of plural criminal participation, in which the collective act is integrated with the individual causal contribution of each participant —the latter term understood in a broad sense—. In the case of ([Nombre 004]), the contribution he made to the criminal activity was to participate in security operations that were mostly directed at guaranteeing the free transit of [Nombre 001] on public roads, which —as indicated— had as one of its objectives that he not be caught by the authorities. It is reiterated that ensuring the personal freedom and physical integrity of the leader of the organization makes it possible to keep the criminal activity running, since he is the one who organizes it and distributes the work, a context in which enabling his permanence in that position does not constitute a marginal or accessory task, but rather is integrated within the division of functions, the sum of which completes the collective act. By virtue of the foregoing, the contribution made by the defendant, as already clarified, places him at the level of co-authorship (coautoría) in the crime of aggravated drug trafficking. Now, regarding the specific complaints raised by the appellants, it must be indicated that no irregularity is found in the assessment that the trial court made of the defendant's voice. The lower court (a quo) detailed in the judgment the following: \"the court fully recognizes the defendant's voice given that it is exactly the same voice that was also identified each time he requested the floor during trial\" (cf. p. 650 of the judgment). This is a conclusion that derives from the immediacy (inmediación) of the evidence and the benefits of an oral trial, in which the judges have the possibility of broadly perceiving the evidence through their senses, for which reason the formalities sought by the defense were not necessary. In any case, said statement only reaffirms what the trial court verified by other means, namely: \"It can be seen in the first two calls how [Nombre 004] alias '[Nombre 258]' talks with [Nombre 013] and confirms that both he and [Nombre 161] alias '[Nombre 083]' had been approached by the police and had the license plates of the motorcycles they were driving taken down, a situation that was confirmed by the judicial police and reflected in police report IP-138-EN-20 addendum in the following manner: '…in said communication it was reflected how ([Nombre 013]) made reference to whether they took the plates down, this because the Public Force officers carried out an intervention in the afternoon, resulting in two detained motorcycles, which were being driven by ([Nombre 004]) and [Nombre 161]…' (page 14 police report IP-138-EN-20 addendum). The section of the report that mentions the police approach made to [Nombre 004] [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 161] contains inserted illustrative photographs of both the defendants' faces and their identity documents, which confirms the direct link of [Nombre 004] with the remaining members of the criminal group, but furthermore confirms the use and possession of the cellular service attributed to [Nombre 004]\" [sic]. (cf. p. 656 of the judgment). In accordance with the foregoing, even if the reference made by the trial court regarding the defendant's voice were suppressed, the identification of ([Nombre 004]) as one of the interlocutors in the calls that were attributed to him and that were transcribed in the lower court's ruling would remain unchanged. On the other hand, the absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the transportation of drugs is questioned; however, a function of that nature was not attributed to him. The actions that were held as proven in which the defendant participates derive from circumstantial evidence (prueba indiciaria), which is completely valid in a system governed by freedom of proof (libertad probatoria). As has been pointed out, the telephone interventions constitute one of the most relevant inputs to support the criminal liability of ([Nombre 004]), but not the only one, because the dynamics and operating methods of the criminal organization to which he belonged were illustrated from a significant quantity of inputs obtained over more than two years of investigation and which include surveillances, follow-ups, connections with other criminal organizations, among others. What the appellant party seeks is a fragmented and partial analysis of the evidence, since only in that way would it be possible to give way to doubt; however, an exercise of that nature is technically incorrect and, therefore, improper. Direct evidence is not only not essential, but it is difficult to obtain in criminal activities that are carried out with the level of organization and professionalism with which the defendants operated, who acted clandestinely and trying not to leave a trace of their activities. Therefore, it is the circumstantial evidence (prueba indiciaria), assessed jointly and in a concatenated manner, that has validly supported the declaration of criminal liability of the defendants and particularly of ([Nombre 004]). Except for the deficiencies that were noted, in the consideration of the majority of the members of this Chamber, the trial court adequately assessed the evidence and sufficiently developed the reasons why it considered that the accused performed the functions attributed to him, a conclusion with which this Chamber unanimously agrees, as has been set forth. A lack of correlation between the accusation and the judgment is alleged; however, it has been verified that the acts accused and those proven are the same. The defense did not detail which fact or circumstance would have been included by the trial court without having been described in the judgment, so it is not possible to understand what it refers to. The truth is that, during the comprehensive review of the ruling, it has been possible to verify that the trial court absorbed a significant quantity of information that it later reproduced in the judgment and that allowed the manner in which the defendants organized themselves to be known. Even information on actions that were not punishable was recorded, such as recreational activities, but which contributed to understanding the way in which the group behaved, mainly around its leader [Nombre 001]. It is verified that the criminal phenomenon investigated and that was ultimately proven at trial was drug trafficking, and it is on this basis that the declaration of the accused's criminal liability was made.\n\nAt no time did the original accusation (imputación) exceed its scope, thus the inclusion of any surprising aspect from which the accused (encartado) had no possibility of defending himself is ruled out. Nor are defects in the accusation (imputación) verified, since the factual description contained in the accusation (acusación) specifies the functions and activities attributed to the accused (encartado). Facts 1 and 2 of the factual account refer to the existence of the criminal organization, the period during which it remained active, its members, and the operational model through which the criminal activities were carried out. The third fact describes the function that the accused (encartado) fulfilled within the criminal organization and which constitutes his contribution to the crime. Then, in fact 4.26, it was clearly attributed to the defendant ([Nombre 004]) that, between April 2018 and October 2020, he performed logistics functions for the organization and specifically security functions, so it is not true that the accusation (acusación) lacks the level of detail and specificity sufficient for the accused (encartado) to understand the facts that were imputed to him and to be able to defend himself against them —the remaining attributions are not taken into consideration as it is unnecessary in light of the decision reached—. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the evidentiary assessment carried out by the trial court, with respect to the criminal liability of ([Nombre 004]) —with the clarifications made in this recital—, is sufficient and adequate, which is why the claims expressed by the technical and material defense must be dismissed. Consequently, the sole ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by the private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of the accused ([Nombre 004]), and the first and third grounds of the challenge (impugnación) brought by the latter in exercise of his material defense, are declared without merit (sin lugar). By majority, the sentence (pena) imposed is annulled ex officio, and a new sentencing hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered, since the criminal reproach of ([Nombre 004]) was made in consideration of the totality of the illicit actions attributed and, consequently, it is appropriate to analyze whether any adjustment is warranted based on his new circumstances as delimited in this ruling. On that occasion, the principle of non-reformation in detriment (no reforma en perjuicio) must be observed.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** Although the decision set forth in the preceding recital (XXXIII) is unanimous – regarding the declaration that the three grounds of the described appeals (recursos de apelación) are without merit – with deep respect I depart from the majority decision of this *ad quem* chamber only in two aspects: first, insofar as it was considered that: \"…there are deficiencies in the intellectual reasoning (fundamentación intelectiva) that must be declared, with respect to the facts located in points 4.27, 4.28, and 4.29, since the evidence considered by the *a quo* does not prove the circumstances described therein.\", and second, for the consequent decision by the majority to annul, ex officio, the sentence (pena) imposed on [Nombre 004] and to order a remand (reenvío) for a new ruling on the matter. For the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, when declaring the sole ground of the appeal (apelación) by the private defense on behalf of ([Nombre 004]) without merit, and the first and third grounds of the challenge (impugnación) by the accused (encartado) in his material defense, I do so with the understanding that the judgment (sentencia) proved, objectively and adequately, all the facts that the Public Ministry attributed to [Nombre 004]. After reviewing the intellectual reasoning (fundamentación intelectiva) of the verdict (folio 647 et seq.), regarding the determination of the facts for which the defendant was convicted, I consider that the court did provide reasoning (motivó) for the decision according to the duty arising from Articles 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal). In this second-instance ruling – both in the recitals resolved unanimously, as well as in my dissenting votes – it has been established that [Nombre 029], who is the older brother of [Nombre 004], was one of the co-perpetrators of drug trafficking closest to the top of the criminal network. The trial court made it clear that, during the entire investigation period, the sole economic activity to which [Nombre 029] dedicated himself was the distribution and trafficking of drugs, as part of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001]. Now, it was proven – and is hereby confirmed at this stage – that one of the tasks of [Nombre 029] was the storage and administration of money obtained from drug trafficking. In this vein, the *a quo* began the analysis regarding his brother [Nombre 004], highlighting that in an intercepted communication – which occurred on January 20, 2019 – (sequence 0060281), it is clear that on the instructions of [Nombre 029] and even his partner, also accused [Nombre 026], [Nombre 004] certainly participated in the handling of the money that came from drug trafficking by this criminal group. In addition, the intervention – as analyzed by the criminal court – also revealed that [Nombre 029] was asking for accounts from [Nombre 004] precisely regarding his handling of the criminal network's money, for which the verdict assesses the explicit content of the communication contained in sequence 0060284. The *a quo* summarizes what was reflected by the communications, specifically by stating that: “Note then how a totally active participation by [Nombre 004] is observed, having total contact with the money that came from drug trafficking, to the point that in one of the calls he takes the phone from [Nombre 026], who was talking with [Nombre 029] about the issue of money movements, being that [Nombre 004] [Nombre 004] takes part in the reception, storage, and custody of said money, the court fully recognizes the voice of the defendant given that it is exactly the same voice that was also identified every time he requested to speak during the debate.” (cfr. judgment (sentencia), folio 650). Continuing with the study of the evidence, the verdict proceeds to specify the specific events accused by the Public Ministry, having proven the one on September 1, 2019. In this regard, according to the analysis of the communication recorded in sequence number 0026740, the decision-making body concludes that [Nombre 029] requested his brother [Nombre 004] to proceed to “exchange” money at a bank branch located in Plaza Lincoln in Moravia. At this point, I depart from the vehement consideration of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, since I consider that the accused fact does indeed impute to [Nombre 004] having received that instruction from his brother [Nombre 029], in the context of his knowledge and active participation precisely in the reception and administration of the proceeds from drug trafficking. Although the evidence does not establish that the order was for deposits to be made into third-party accounts, this could even be hypothetically excluded from the proven facts without the result being different, given that what is relevant is that the court accredited that the evidence allowed linking [Nombre 004], precisely following instructions from his brother [Nombre 029], in the context of receiving the money that the organization obtained from the sale and movement of drugs. The same happens with the other two events accused and proven to have occurred on February 13, 2020, which the *a quo* infers from other telephone communications between [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 004] (sequence 0064311), according to which it concludes that: “Note that once [Nombre 004] following instructions from his brother [Nombre 029], (…) takes part in the matter and questions his brother about why he charges such low interest, that he could perfectly charge a little more, clearly evidencing the informality and illegality of the loans.” (ibid, folio 654). In this regard, if the accusation was that [Nombre 029] issued instructions to his brother [Nombre 004], in the context of using money from drug trafficking for loans to third parties, that was certainly what the evidence proved. Therefore, from my point of view, the reasoning (fundamentación) for the conviction of ([Nombre 004]) was indeed made according to the requirements of articles 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), which is why I consider that all the facts proven by the *a quo* must remain intact. Consequently, I also depart from the majority decision, consisting of annulling, ex officio, the sentence (pena) imposed on [Nombre 004] and ordering the respective remand (reenvío). In my view, since the proven facts of the judgment (sentencia) remain intact, there is no reduction in criminal liability that justifies a reconsideration of the culpability. Therefore, I consider that the sentence (pena) should not be annulled, but rather, on the contrary, the second ground of the appeal (apelación) of ([Nombre 004]), which precisely refers to the reasoning (fundamentación) of the sentence (pena) imposed on him by the court, must be addressed and resolved.-\n\n**Second ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by ([Nombre 004]), in exercise of his material defense.** Claims «Disagreement with the determination of the sentence (pena)». He considers that in his case the parameters for determining the sentence (pena) established in article 71 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal) were not addressed, specifically the provisions in subsections d) and e), which require the analysis of the determining elements of the crime and the personal characteristics of the active subject. He indicates that a Social Work expert opinion was offered that describes the extreme poverty conditions in which he has lived, his lack of schooling which has limited his employment opportunities. He states that the document offers a professional assessment that provides a perspective on his personal characteristics and that could have underpinned the imposition of a lesser sentence (pena). He accuses that the aforementioned expert opinion was not analyzed and that the provision in article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) was breached, regarding the duty to provide reasoning (fundamentación). He considers that the detailed deficiencies must lead to the sentence (pena) imposed being declared ineffective. Regarding the grievance, he indicates that a higher sentence (pena) was imposed on him than that corresponding to his situation. He requests that the sentence (pena) imposed be annulled and a new sentencing hearing (juicio de reenvío) be ordered; additionally, that the Social Work expert opinion contained in the case file be assessed. **A ruling is omitted as unnecessary.** By virtue of the fact that in the preceding recital the majority of this Chamber ex officio ordered the new sentencing hearing (juicio de reenvío) for a new reasoning (fundamentación) of the sentence (pena) to be imposed on ([Nombre 004]) for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, a ruling on the second ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by the defendant is omitted as unnecessary.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** In order to be consistent with my dissenting vote set forth in the preceding recital – XXXIII –, with deep respect I depart from the majority decision of this *ad quem* chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in the dissenting vote that precedes, I consider that the second ground of the appeal (apelación) of the accused (encartado) ([Nombre 004]) must indeed be addressed and resolved.-\n\n**XXXV. Second ground of appeal (apelación) filed by the private defender Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Nombre 001].** Alleges «Violation of the principle of reasoning (fundamentación) for failing to resolve what was requested, transgression of the principle of accusation (imputación), impairment of the right to defense and, consequently, to due process, due to excessively broad time frames». Points out that the trial court incurred a defect due to a total lack of analytical and reasoned justification (motivación) regarding the violation of the right to defense that was claimed, since «the time frames described in the accusation (acusación) are excessively extensive and, in the case of his client, [Nombre 001], the circumstances of time, manner, and place are never detailed, which prevents the accusatory piece from meeting the requirements for its validity». States that the justification (motivación) contained in the judgment (sentencia) is contradictory, partial, and insufficient. He maintains that the verdict omits presenting factual and legal grounds (fundamentos fácticos y jurídicos) for the defense's arguments «without it being known why they were not assessed nor why they are not detailed in the ruling (resolución)».\n\nHe argues that the accusation does not directly attribute any criminal conduct to his client; rather, the Public Prosecutor's Office \"uses verbs like 'designated' ('designó') or 'delegated' ('delegó') to try to establish a link with other defendants, without specifying the circumstances of time, place, and manner, essential elements of any charge.\" He clarifies that the accusation cannot be interpreted, and points out that the first fact describes the formation of a criminal organization, which constitutes preparatory acts and, therefore, are not punishable. He indicates that the fourth fact represents \"the central core of the charge,\" containing the specific conducts that the accusing body had to prove. He alleges that an attempt was made to link his client to the organization through a phrase that was \"convenient but lacking evidentiary support,\" such as that he designated a third party. He adds that \"the 'time frame' ('marco temporal')\" in which the accusation places the organization's actions covers 19 months, from April 2018 to October 2019 —not 2020—, which could be a material error that was never corrected. He maintains that with this, \"the prosecution delimited the period in which the facts had to be proven, so the court could not deem as accredited conducts outside that interval.\" He emphasizes that in the subsequent facts, the circumstances of time, manner, and place regarding his client are not described. He considers that the charge presents substantial defects that render it inadmissible, for contravening Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). He recalls that during the closing arguments stage, it was alleged that the accusation generated helplessness, without the judgment ruling on the matter. He reproaches that in fact 4.1, it was not specified how, when, or where his client would have designated ([Nombre 005]) and his wife for the delivery of narcotics. In fact 4.6, he highlights that his client is not mentioned as the one who sold, commercialized, or distributed drugs, but rather a generic reference is made to the organization, which —he indicates— violates the principle of individual criminal responsibility. The same occurs with fact 4.7, where the essential circumstances are also not detailed. He considers it essential to know the quantity of the drug involved, since it could be a case of personal consumption, which would prevent its confiscation. He argues that in facts 4.9 through 4.12, no concrete charge is formulated regarding the relationship with [Nombre 010]. He points out that the verb used was \"authorize\" ('autorizar'), but it does not correspond to a valid charge according to criminal procedural regulations, and that it also does not answer the basic questions of when, where, and how said authorization would have occurred. Regarding fact 4.13, he maintains that the same deficiencies persist, this time concerning the verb \"delegate\" ('delegar') in actions of possession and storage of drugs and weapons. He adds that the temporal parameter extends to 34 months, which in his judgment demonstrates a lack of clarity in the accusation. In fact 4.17, he indicates that the verb \"assign\" ('asignar') was used, but without specifying temporal, spatial, or modal circumstances, nor the type or quantity of the drug allegedly commercialized. He criticizes that the wording of the fact allows inferring that the assignment could have occurred at any time between 2015 and 2018, which makes the charge confusing. Regarding facts 4.20 and 4.23, he objects that they do not contain a concrete charge, and in the latter, he highlights that the recruitment of [Nombre 007] could have occurred even before 2018. He reiterates his observations regarding facts 4.26, 4.33, and 4.42, as well as from 5.1 to 5.14. He considers that his client cannot adequately exercise his defense if he does not know the specific day within the temporal parameter set in the accusation on which he would have performed the attributed conducts. He concludes that the accusation does not comply with the requirements of Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal) and that the trial court did not address these observations. He argues that the right to defense cannot be duly exercised when the accusation is formulated with wide temporal margins and without precision of the other circumstances, which also violates the principle of correlation between the accusation and the judgment. He asserts that none of the circumstances assessed by the court in its reasoning were clearly established in the accusation. He considers that an absolute defect was incurred, since it is not possible to substitute or expand the prosecutorial accusation with a different or more extensive factual narrative to the detriment of the accused. He points out that the proven facts are identical to those charged and that even in the evidence section, the same arguments of the Public Prosecutor's Office were reproduced. He questions that his claim was rejected in barely five lines of the judgment, which he describes as mockery towards his client. He alleges that, unlike his client, concerning the accused [Nombre 007] —acquitted of money laundering— a detailed analysis of the accusation was indeed performed, which constitutes a contradiction that violates the principle of coherence. Finally, he maintains that his client's right to offer evidence to exercise his defense and refute the accusation was affected, since a specific date of occurrence of the facts was not specified and the temporal parameter covers \"any day of the 1033 days mentioned in the accusation,\" implying that the court \"had to suppose that they occurred at some moment,\" a situation that —in his judgment— violates the principle of correlation between the accusation and the ruling. As a grievance, he points out that a conviction was issued against [Nombre 001] through a judgment riddled with errors and contrary to law, such that the imposed penalty lacks legitimacy. He requests the acquittal of the accused and, subsidiarily, that a retrial be ordered. Additionally, he asks that the precautionary measure be revoked and his immediate release be ordered. **The motion is declared without merit.** After analyzing the accusatory document, this Chamber dismisses the defects alleged by the defense. The principle of imputation derives from numerals 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos) and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Pacto Interamericano de Derechos Civiles y Políticos). According to the latter, every person accused of a crime has the right: \"To be informed without delay, in a language they understand and in detail, of the nature and causes of the charge against them\" and also \"To have adequate time and means for the preparation of their defense and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing.\" In the domestic legal order, numeral 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal) translates this supra-constitutional guarantee into the requirement that the accusation contain \"The precise and detailed account of the punishable act attributed.\" Like any other procedural form, the adequate criminal charge must be correlated with the right it protects, which in this case is the right to defense. By virtue of the foregoing, an appropriate charge will be one that enables the affected person to effectively exercise their right to technical and material defense, by providing them with data that allows them to know and understand the attributed act and thus be able to combat it. In this regard, the doctrine states: \"[…] for someone to defend themselves it is essential that there be something to defend against: that is, something that they are attributed to have done or omitted to do in the factual world, with significance in the legal world, a requirement that in criminal procedural matters is known as the charge. The core of that charge is, as has been observed, a factual hypothesis —an action or omission depending on whether it is held to injure a prohibition or a mandate of the legal order— attributed to the accused, which, in the judgment of the person formulating it, leads to criminal-legal consequences, since it contains all the elements, according to the penal law, of a punishable act. The correctly formulated charge is the key that opens the door to the possibility of defending oneself efficiently, for it allows denying all or some of its elements to avoid or lessen the criminal-legal consequence to which it is intended to lead, or, alternatively, adding elements that, combined with those affirmed, also guide toward avoiding the consequence or reducing it. But, for the possibility of being heard to be an efficient means of exercising the defense, it cannot rest on a more or less vague or confused attribution of malice or enmity with the legal order, that is, an imprecise and disordered account of the action or omission charged to the accused, much less on an abstraction (committed homicide or usurpation), resorting to the name of the infraction, but rather, on the contrary, must have as its premise the clear, precise, and detailed affirmation of the concrete, singular fact, from a person's life. This means describing an event —presumed real— with all the circumstances of manner, time, and place that locate it in the world of facts (temporally and spatially) and provide it with its concrete materiality\" (Maier, Julio. Derecho Procesal Penal. Tomo I. 2nd ed. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto, 2002, p.553). In the case at hand, the technical defense considers that the prosecutorial accusation made against [Nombre 001] violates this principle. For this reason, to determine whether the violation exists or not, the first step is to summarize the facts charged and subsequently found proven.\n\nHowever, beforehand, a clarification must be made regarding the specific situation of [Nombre 001], given that he was attributed with being the leader of a criminal organization primarily dedicated to drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas), which is why the charges brought against him are not concentrated in a specific section, but rather are developed throughout the entire factual account (relación fáctica); hence, the transcription of this account is done in extenso: \"1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046] (deceased), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; zones in which they maintained under their control various properties for storage, distribution and sale of drugs, as well as for receiving money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: • The storage and dosage of drug caches acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of caches to the various points of sale. • The sale of drug caches owned by the criminal group to other gangs based in the national territory. • The sale of drug caches owned by the structure to third-party drug-dependent persons, through the properties held by the organization for such purposes, 'Bunker' type, as well as on public roads in the zones under the organization's control. • The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, endeavoring for that purpose the use of various means to that end. 3.- This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so each of its members performed specific functions, all in a single direction, the sale of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As stated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: • [Nombre 001]: known by the aliases of '[Nombre 084]', among others; he was the leader of the criminal organization, in charge of the direction, supervision and coordination of the criminal group, by his own hand or through intermediary members; he maintained control of the totality of the illicit actions carried out by the criminal structure such as: the storage of drug caches owned by the organization; the transport and distribution of the caches to third-party groups based in various parts of the country; the sale of drugs in zones under the control of the gang; the collection and distribution of the money generated by the illicit activity, as well as endeavoring through multiple actions executed by group members and front persons (testaferros) to insert the proceeds derived from illicit activities into the national economy and financial system, among other things demanded by the drug-trafficking business. • [Nombre 030]: acted as a member of the criminal organization whose duties, among other functions, corresponded under the direction and supervision of the leader [Nombre 001], to endeavor, through the acquisition of high economic value goods, to insert into the national economy and the financial system the economic gains derived from the drug activity carried out by the organization; for this purpose he endeavored to recruit third-party outsiders, who joined the organization as front persons (testaferros) in whose names the goods acquired by the organization were registered in the various lawful controls to register them in the name of front persons who collaborated with the purpose of concealing the illicit origin of the funds through which the goods enjoyed by the criminal group were acquired. • [Nombre 013]: member of the criminal group, who was one of the trusted persons of the leader [Nombre 001], who was responsible, among other functions, for handling his personal security, as well as performing custody work for the drug transports carried out by the criminal group; additionally, he was one of those responsible for transmitting to the remaining members of the organization the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001]; on behalf of the latter, he supervised and personally executed the collection and storage of moneys obtained from the drug trafficking activity, for which he used the property owned by his mother as a 'warehouse' (bodega) or storage center for illicit inputs of the criminal organization. • [Nombre 022]: member of the criminal group, who, in association with the accused ([Nombre 013]), was responsible, among other functions, for handling his personal security, as well as performing custody work for the drug transports carried out by the criminal group; additionally, he was another of those responsible for transmitting to the remaining members of the organization the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001]; under the direction and supervision of the leader, he executed the collection and storage of moneys obtained from the drug trafficking activity.\n\n• [Name 029]: member of the criminal group; he appeared as one of the leader's trusted persons; his functions included, among others, coordinating and executing all actions aimed at the security and protection of [Name 001] and his family nucleus; additionally, under the direction and supervision of the leader, he personally carried out the deliveries of drug shipments that the organization sold to other criminal structures; he was also responsible, in association with his romantic partner, the accused [Name 026], for the collection and safeguarding of the money derived from the illicit activity carried out by the narco structure; he was also one of the members of the group designated to recruit third parties outside the organization for the purpose of having them provide their accounts at various financial entities in order to move through them the money derived from the drug trafficking activity executed by the organization. • [Name 161]: (absent in this case) member of the criminal group; his functions included, alternately or jointly with ([Name 004]), among others, coordinating and executing all actions aimed at the security and protection of [Name 001] and his family nucleus; additionally, under the direction and supervision of the leader, he carried out the delivery of drug shipments that the organization sold to other criminal structures; he was one of the persons responsible for collecting the money derived from the informal financial intermediation actions (loans) that the narco structure executed, with the purpose of investing the profits from the drug sales activity carried out; and through this intermediation they sought the insertion into the formal economy and the national financial system of the money coming from the narco-activity. • [Name 026]: member of the organization, whose functions included, among others, the task of assisting the accused ([Name 004]) in the stockpiling and storage of the money derived from the distribution and sale of drugs that the criminal organization executed; she also recruited third persons outside the narco gang to make systematic deposits into the accounts used by the organization for the purpose of inserting the money coming from the illicit activity into the national financial system and facilitating the enjoyment and investment of those profits by the members of the criminal structure. • [Name 015]: member of the narco structure, whose functions included, among others, providing support in the tasks assigned by the criminal leader to the accused [Name 004] and [Name 022], primarily in the tasks of distributing shipments and collecting the money derived from the activity inherent to drug trafficking; he was also one of the persons designated in the organization to store and guard, in his residence, supplies owned by the organization, primarily drug shipments, money, and weapons.• [Name 007]: member of the narco structure, whose functions included, among others, under the direction and supervision of the leader of the criminal structure, storing and guarding, in designated properties, supplies owned by the organization, primarily drug shipments and weapons; he was also responsible for performing security tasks during the drug deliveries that the criminal group made to other narco structures for the purpose of transport, supply, and acquisition of the shipments.\n\n• [Name 046] (deceased): member of the criminal structure, who, among other functions assigned by the upper echelons of the organization, was responsible for participating in the necessary actions that the narco band demanded of him for the drug trafficking trade, primarily he was one of the persons responsible for collaborating in the transport and movement of supplies owned by the criminal group, such as drug shipments and money; additionally, it was established that he held an important hierarchical rank that even allowed him to have persons under his charge, who were responsible for the sale of drugs to third parties. Likewise, in the case of ([Name 046]), he was responsible for facilitating the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in his name movable and immovable property acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to place them at the disposal and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group. • [Name 050] (Absent in this case): member of the criminal structure, who, among other functions assigned by the leader and the upper echelons of the criminal group, carried out actions such as transporting drugs owned by the organization; storing drug shipments for their subsequent distribution and commercialization; additionally, he was another of the members responsible for facilitating the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in his name movable and immovable property acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to place them at the disposal and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group; all of the foregoing without prejudice to any other action required of him in pursuit of the success of the narco-activity carried out by the organization. • [Name 016]: member of the criminal structure, who, among other functions, assisted the accused [Name 050] in the tasks of storing drug shipments owned by the narco band at her residence, additionally, she was another of the members responsible for facilitating the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in her name movable property acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to place them at the disposal and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group. • [Name 004]: Member of the criminal group, who, according to the functions entrusted to him by the hierarchy of the criminal group, was tasked with collecting and safeguarding money that originated from the illicit drug trafficking; likewise, the accused ([Name 004]) also maintained as a function within the group the execution of any logistical action entrusted to him by the higher-ranking members. • [Name 010]: Member of the criminal organization and confidant of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001], his functions within the group were oriented according to the instructions given by the hierarchy and were aimed at the security of the leader of the criminal group and the sale of narcotics to third parties. • [Name 019]: member of the criminal group, his hierarchical rank within the group was to provide collaboration to other high-ranking members of the criminal group, such is the case of the accused ([Name 046]) in the storage and sale of drugs. Furthermore, his functionality as a front man (testaferro) was accredited, by lending his name for the registration of high economic value property owned by the criminal organization led by [Name 001]. • [Name 053] (fugitive), a person who occupied the function of direct collaborator of [Name 050], in which he stood out as one of the persons in charge of the sale of narcotics, as well as the transport of money proceeds from the narco-activity to points designated for this purpose by the criminal organization.\n\n4.- During the period comprised between the months of April 2018 and October 2019, the criminal organization made up of the accused carried out a series of criminal actions in pursuit of the ultimate goal of the organization, which is drug trafficking, among which the following stand out: 4.1 As part of the operating model employed by the Criminal Organization, the accused [Name 001] designated the accused [Name 029] to carry out deliveries of narcotics to other criminal organizations rooted in the Central Valley, for which they used a Mitsubishi brand, Montero model vehicle, with license plate [Value 075], which had compartments specially designed for the transport of narcotics shipments; likewise, the administration of the money proceeds from drug trafficking was delegated to the accused [Name 026] and ([Name 004]): 4.2 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money proceeds from Drug Trafficking, on the 6th day of December 2018, they held under their custody, disposition, and storage, in the dwelling located in [...], an amount of approximately 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.3 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money proceeds from Drug Trafficking, on the 21st day of December 2018, they held under their custody, disposition, and storage, in the dwelling located in [...], an amount of approximately 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system.\n\n4.4 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of money derived from drug trafficking, as of December 31, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposition, and storage, in the dwelling located in [...], an amount of approximately 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.5 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, in the period of the year 2018 and until the month of October of the year 2020, the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029] were in charge of the recruitment function of third parties, who were responsible for making deposits of money derived from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as performing the functions of currency exchange and purchase, all with the purpose of incorporating the money derived from drug trafficking into the national banking system. 4.6 In the period from April of the year 2018 until the month of April of the year 2019, the criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001] sold, commercialized, and supplied unauthorized drugs to the criminal organization led by [Name 099] (Imprisoned in Nicaragua), which was operationally directed on Costa Rican soil by the person identified as [Name 137]. 4.7 The methodology used by both criminal organizations consisted of [Name 001] designating the accused [Name 029] to transport shipments of narcotics, using the Mitsubishi brand, Montero model vehicle, with license plate [Value 075], periodically, from the properties designated for drug storage by this criminal group, from the center of criminal operations in the León XIII housing complex, a drug that was commercialized with the organization directed by ([Name 137]), to the property located in [...], black gate on the right side, a site where the person identified as [Name 101] (member of the Organization of ([Name 137])), stored and guarded the narcotics, which the criminal group subsequently processed, dosed, and commercialized at the different drug sales points in which this criminal group was entrenched in the central valley. 4.8 This methodology for the commercialization of drugs extended over the period from the month of April of the year 2018 until April 3, 2019, the date on which operational tasks were carried out by the Drug Section of the Judicial Investigation Agency, in which the arrest of 21 people was achieved, including the operational leader of the criminal group [Name 137], as well as the seizure of 12.28 grams of shredded Cannabis Sativa, a plastic wrapper containing 0.30 grams of powdered solid Ketamine, a plastic wrapper containing 0.48 grams of Ketamine, a transparent plastic wrapper containing 1.23 grams of powdered solid Ketamine, a plastic wrapper containing 0.11 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride, and 1,437 plastic wrappers of which at least 1,078 contain an estimated net weight of 79.8 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride fragment, drugs that were destined for their illicit commercialization at the drug sales points controlled by the organization of [Name 137]. (Facts Investigated in case file 18-000017-1219-PE). 4.9 As part of the distribution of functions of the members of the criminal group, the hierarchy of the group allowed members of the criminal organization to perform various functions ranging from surveillance and control of certain perimeters of the León XIII housing complex, to the sale of narcotics, such is the case of the accused [Name 010], who maintained these roles within the criminal group, with the authorization of the accused [Name 001]. 4.10 On November 27, 2018, as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, he coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of a shipment of narcotics, with the accused issuing instructions through the communication channel he used, to coordinate the delivery of the drugs in exchange for an undetermined amount of money. 4.11 As part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 22, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of a quantity close to one pound of Marijuana, for a sum close to ¢130,000.00 (one hundred thirty thousand colones). 4.12 As part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 5, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of at least one kilogram of Cocaine Hydrochloride for an amount close to ¢5,100,000.00 (five million one hundred thousand colones). 4.13 As part of the distribution of functions of the members of the criminal group, the hierarchy of the group allowed, in the period of the year 2018 until the month of October of the year 2020, members of the criminal organization to perform various functions aimed at the possession and storage of supplies ranging from drugs, money, and firearms; these actions were delegated by the leader of the criminal group [Name 001] to the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], and for such purposes they used the dwelling located in [...], and for this storage action the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.14 On November 21, 2019, the accused ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions of possession and storage of drugs they performed for the criminal group, kept under their possession and storage a shipment of narcotics, which was destined for its commercialization with third parties, clients of the criminal organization they formed. 4.15 On May 19, 2019, the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed and stored at least two kilograms of Cocaine Hydrochloride, in the property located at the dwelling situated in [...], a drug that was destined for its sale to third parties.\n\n4.16 On June 13, 2019, the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed, guarded, and stored a stash of narcotics in the property located at the dwelling situated in [...], drugs that were intended for sale to third parties. 4.17 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] assigned the accused ([Name 046]) to, during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, carry out functions such as the sale and distribution of drugs in the sector of the León XIII housing complex, specifically marijuana, as well as to fulfill a function as a front man (testaferro) in the registration of vehicles owned by the narco gang. Likewise, the accused [Name 046] delegated the function of possession, storage, and sale of drugs to the accused [Name 019], who carried out drug sales to third-party consumers from his dwelling in the same León XIII housing complex and who also participated in the criminal group as a front man (testaferro) in the registration of high-economic-value assets. 4.18 On July 3, 2019, at 12:38 hours, the accused [Name 046] made arrangements using his cell phone for the sale of a stash of narcotics to a person identified by the alias “[Name 249]”. 4.19 On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, the raid, search, and seizure (allanamiento, registro y secuestro) proceedings were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the accused [Name 019] at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 019]; the following result was obtained: - 199.48 grams of flowering tops of the cannabis sativa plant, a drug that ([Name 019]) marketed to third parties at the property where he resided. - An HS-K brand electronic scale, gray and black, with its respective charger. - A total amount of cash in the sum of ¢359,000.00 (three hundred fifty-nine thousand colones), money generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused ([Name 019]) as a direct collaborator of [Name 046]. - Six cell phones with accessories described as follows: a white Samsung Duos brand cell phone, with IMEI number 352550071157109 and 352551071157107 with a Kolbi SIM card numbered 89506010919211755, a black LG brand cell phone with IMEI 357137076226645 with its respective battery and cover with a piece of paper attached with tape bearing the number 71-6583-24, a black Huawei brand cell phone, IMEI 863137041709912, with SIM number 8950604201507695102F and a micro SD 8 GB, a black Apple brand iPhone model cell phone, IMEI 355315082004465, a white Apple brand iPhone model cell phone with a Movistar SIM card #8950604102001203204, a black Samsung brand cell phone, with external IMEI 354260112884186 and second IMEI 354261112884184, a 32 GB Kingston memory card, and a Movistar SIM 8950604201002368269f. 4.20 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] assigned the accused [Name 050] (absent) to, during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, carry out functions such as the distribution and sale of drugs in the sector of the León XIII housing complex, specifically Marijuana. Likewise, the accused [Name 050] delegated the function of possession, storage, and sale of drugs to his sister, the accused ([Name 016]), who carried out drug sales to third-party consumers from her dwelling in the same León XIII housing complex and who also participated in the criminal group as a front man (testaferro) in the registration of high-economic-value assets. 4.21 On December 5, 2019, at 16:52 hours, as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Name 016]) kept under her custody and possession in her dwelling, located in [...], a stash of narcotics, an action that was carried out in assistance and collaboration with her brother [Name 050]. 4.22 On December 24, 2019, at 14:58 hours, as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Name 016]) kept under her custody and possession in her dwelling, located in [...], a stash of narcotics, an action that was directly ordered by her brother, the accused [Name 050]. 4.23 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] recruited the accused [Name 007] to, during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, carry out functions pertaining to the logistics of the criminal organization, which ranged from ensuring the security of the criminal group through the monitoring of security cameras, to the storage of money obtained from drug trafficking in his dwelling, actions for which the accused received financial compensation as payment. 4.24 On November 1, 2019, in [...], the owned dwelling where the accused [Name 007] resided, as part of the actions delegated by the criminal organization regarding the storage of narcotics, he kept under his custody and possession a stash of narcotics, which was intended for commercialization with third parties. 4.25 On November 11, 2019, in [...], the owned dwelling where the accused [Name 007] resided, as part of the actions delegated by the criminal organization regarding the storage of narcotics, he kept under his custody and possession at least one kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride, which was commercialized with a subject identified by the alias “[Name 187]”, an action that was supervised by the accused [Name 161].\n\n4.26 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] and [Name 029] recruited the accused [Name 004] so that, in the period from the month of April 2018 to the month of October 2020, he would carry out logistics functions for the criminal organization, which were entrusted with the security of the criminal group through surveillance, security, and the storage of money resulting from drug trafficking, actions for which the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.27 On September 1, 2019, the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004], via telephone, to appear at a banking institution in the Plaza Lincoln Shopping Center in Moravia and to make deposits of money resulting from the trafficking and sale of narcotics into third-party accounts, money that was also intended to be introduced into the national financial system through the acquisition of high-value assets. 4.28 On February 13, 2020, at 19:01 hours, the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004], via telephone, to collect the money generated from the narcotics trafficking activity at various points in the León XIII housing complex, as well as from the illegal money lending activity carried out by the criminal group to third parties, with money derived from narcotics trafficking. 4.29 On February 13, 2020, at 20:59 hours, the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004], via telephone, to collect the money generated from the narcotics trafficking activity at various points in the León XIII housing complex, as well as from the illegal informal money lending activity carried out by the criminal group to third parties, with money derived from the trafficking and sale of narcotics. [...] 4.31 The criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001], in the period between February 18, 2019, and April 24, 2019, used the property located at [...] for the storage and medium-scale commercialization of drugs owned by the organization to third-party consumers who appeared at the location; it was also used as one of the sites from which the criminal structure possessed security supplies and technological equipment in an effort to keep the areas under the group's control under electronic surveillance, a property and functions that were in charge of the accused persons [Name 293] and [Name 294] (separate proceedings are being pursued against them). 4.32 On April 24, 2019, the raid, search, and seizure procedures were executed at the property located at [...]; which resulted in the arrest of the group member identified as [Name 294], who, in accordance with the functions assigned by the upper echelons of the criminal organization, was dedicated to drug sales activity during the period already indicated, and at the time of his arrest, he was at the cited property storing and safeguarding two .38 caliber revolver-type firearms, 6 communication radios, at least 5 cell phones, and a closed-circuit surveillance system, articles used to provide security to the rest of the members of the narco structure; he was also safeguarding the sum of 2,356,450.00 colones, money derived from the drug sales activity entrusted to him. (facts charged in investigation process 19-000023-0622-PE). 4.33 In the period between the 3rd and the 17th of May 2019, the criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001], in accordance with the operational model for drug commercialization, designated the accused [Name 029] to carry out the transfer of narcotics caches from the criminal group's operations center in San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, to the property located at [...], which was used by the persons identified as [Name 102], [Name 107], [Name 104], and [Name 105] for the storage, dosage, and distribution of drugs for unauthorized use. 4.34 On May 16, 2019, at 00:20 hours, the accused [Name 029], following the instructions given by the hierarchy of the criminal group and in adherence to the operational model used for drug trafficking and commerce, transferred a cache of narcotics from San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, Alameda las Tennis, using a Mitsubishi Montero-style vehicle, license plate [Value 075], to the property located at [...], a place where the accused ([Name 004]) entered for a few minutes and subsequently withdrew. 4.35 On May sixteenth, two thousand nineteen, at 18:51 hours, at [...], the accused [Name 106], [Name 107], and [Name 108], stored, prepared, processed, and possessed drugs for unauthorized use for the purpose of sale, specifically, cocaine hydrochloride and crack cocaine base. 4.36 As such, that same day, May sixteenth of the year two thousand nineteen, around 18:51 hours, the accused person [Name 105] arrived at the dwelling under investigation where the narcotics supplied by ([Name 004]) were stored, aboard a black Toyota RAV-4 vehicle, metal plates [Value 076], from which he descended and was handed, by the accused ([Name 107]), a bag containing two thousand five hundred twenty-one plastic wrappers with fragments of cocaine and two plastic wrappers with a total of 200.27 grams of solid powder containing cocaine; he proceeded to leave the site, at which moment he was approached by officers of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), who carried out his arrest and the seizure of the drugs he was transporting. 4.37 Due to the foregoing, on May seventeenth, two thousand nineteen, at 09:40 hours, a raid was carried out on the dwelling where the accused [Name 029] had delivered the narcotics, a location where the following were found: utensils characteristic of the commercialization, processing, and preparation of psychotropic substances, such as; a black and silver digital scale, plastic wrappers, sodium bicarbonate, small blades, as well as the seizure of fifty plastic wrappers with fragments of cocaine, a bag with residues of fragments of cocaine, and two wrappers with 2004.16 grams of compact solid containing cocaine, drugs that were stored and intended to be commercialized with third parties, and which were supplied by the criminal organization led by [Name 001]; likewise, the seizure was achieved of one million four hundred eighty thousand seventy-five colones (1,480,075.00), cash in small denominations, derived from the drug trafficking activity, and the arrest of [Name 106], [Name 107], and [Name 108] (Facts investigated in summary proceeding 19-014179-0042-PE).\n\n4.38 The accused [Name 001], designated the person identified as [Name 268] alias [Name 269] (now deceased) to manage the drug sale points located in San José, Tibás, León XIII, Garabito sector, alameda 1; this methodology was used by the criminal group in the time frame between August 1, 2019, and November 6, 2019. 4.39 As part of the actions inherent to the drug trafficking activity carried out by [Name 268] in his capacity as manager, the criminal group used the following properties as drug sale points, for the sale and distribution of narcotics: - [...]. - [...]. - [...]. - [...]. 4.40 Likewise, as part of the operational model employed by the Criminal Organization led by [Name 001], and which were delegated by [Name 268], the actions of possession, storage, dosing, and sale of drugs were carried out by the following persons [Name 296], [Name 297], [Name 298], [Name 299], [Name 300], [Name 301], [Name 302], [Name 303], and [Name 304], who carried out these actions in the period from August 1, 2019, until November 6, 2019. 4.41 On November 6, 2019, at 4:10 p.m., the raids were carried out on the homes used by the criminal group for the storage, dosing, distribution, and sale of drugs, which resulted in the arrest of [Name 303] and [Name 298] outside the home located at [...], in possession of three doses of cocaine hydrochloride base “crack”. The defendant [Name 299] was arrested at [...], in possession of scales, a grinder, and wrappers for the preparation and dosing of illicit substances. The accused [Name 297] was arrested at the home located at [...], in possession of sixteen wrappers of marijuana, which he kept in the drain of the laundry room; likewise, the seizure of firearms, documents related to drug trafficking activity, documents regarding the transfer of properties used for the storage and sale of drugs, as well as an amount of ¢600,000.00 (six hundred thousand colones in cash) from drug trafficking activity and a closed-circuit surveillance system with security cameras was achieved. The narcotics seized and marketed during the investigation period were supplied by the criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001]. (Facts investigated in case 19-000160-0622-PE). 4.42 The accused [Name 001], designated as one of the trusted persons in the hierarchy of the criminal group the defendant [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” (absent from this proceeding), for the purpose of managing and administering the actions of possession, storage, sale, and distribution of the Marijuana marketed by the criminal group in the period from January 2019 until October 13, 2020; likewise, ([Name 016]), had the role of supervising the collection of money proceeds from the narcotic sale activity, a material action that was delegated by him to lower-ranking members of the criminal group, who were in charge of collecting these supplies at the drug sale points controlled and managed by the group and subsequently transferring them to safe houses designated by the hierarchy of the drug gang. 4.43. Without specifying an exact date, but before 10:20 p.m. on December 5, 2019, the defendant [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” (absent from this proceeding), issued instructions to the accused person [Name 053] (a fugitive), a member of the criminal group, to collect a total amount of cash in the sum of ¢1,902,600.00 (one million nine hundred two thousand six hundred colones), proceeds from the narcotic sale activity carried out by the criminal group in San José, Tibás, León XIII. 4.44. On December 5, 2019, at 10:20 p.m., in San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, Garabito Sector, Alameda 1, on the public road, Public Force officers, who had knowledge of illicit activities carried out in the sector, approached the accused [Name 053] (a fugitive), who possessed and was transporting a green plastic bag containing inside a total amount of cash in the sum of ¢1,902,600.00 (one million nine hundred two thousand six hundred colones), proceeds from the narcotic sale activity carried out in that sector by the criminal group, as well as the following jewelry: Three rings, a plaque-shaped pendant, a bracelet, and two chains, all of gold, with a value of four million three hundred eight thousand four hundred colones, jewelry that was acquired with money from drug trafficking by [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” (absent from this proceeding). Money and jewelry that were seized by the Public Force officers. 4.45 As a result of the preceding fact, [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” (absent from this proceeding), with the aim of recovering the money seized from the drug trafficking activity and concealing its illicit origin, on the same day, December 5, 2019, designated the person identified as [Name 305], to appear at San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, Garabito Sector, Alameda 1, on the public road and to justify, through the use of a copy of a deed certification, that the total amount of cash in the sum of ¢1,902,600.00 (one million nine hundred two thousand six hundred colones), was the product of a loan granted by the Corporation El Sendero del Puma S.A, legal identification number [Value 207].\n\n5.- During the investigation period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the Criminal Organization comprised of the investigated individuals [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016] and [Name 019], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transfer assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or the ownership thereof; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001]. 5.1 In the period from the year 2018 until October 13, 2020, the accused [Name 001], as a result of the significant amounts of money generated from drug trafficking, invested the money generated from this illicit activity in the property built and used as a residence by the same accused [Name 001], in San José, Tibás, León XIII, Garabito, Alameda I, on farms number [Value 014], [Value 015], [Value 016], [Value 017] and [Value 018], which are registered in the name of third parties, a residence which maintains an economic value of ₡535,886,905.72 (five hundred thirty-five million eight hundred eighty-six thousand nine hundred five colones and seventy-two céntimos). This residence was found to be in use and enjoyment by the accused during the indicated period [...] 5.4 In the period between the month of January 2018 and October 13, 2020, the accused [Name 001] designated the accused [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]” to carry out the actions necessary for the acquisition of high economic value assets, with money from the illicit drug trade, and [Name 030] was also delegated the recruitment of third parties to facilitate their name and identity to register vehicles and assets in their name and thus cover up the illicit origin, assets which were intended for the use and enjoyment of the accused [Name 001] and other members of the criminal group […] 5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of assets acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030] carried out the necessary steps for the purchase and registry inscription of the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this asset at the agency Purdy Motor S.A in the amount of ₡44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was designated by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001] […] 5.8 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value assets, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser, style prado, with a value of ₡13,240,000.00 (thirteen million two hundred forty thousand colones), which was registered with the purpose of concealing the illicit origin derived from drug trafficking in the name of the corporation Vanguard Cleaning RC S.A, represented by [Name 246] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process. 5.9 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value assets, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the vehicle make Mitsubishi, style Sportero, license plate [Value 167], with armor-type security devices, which maintains a value of ₡23,462,250.00 (twenty-three million four hundred sixty-two thousand two hundred fifty colones), which was registered with the purpose of concealing the illicit origin derived from drug trafficking in the name of [Name 236] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process. 5.10 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value assets and the concealment to divert their illicit origin, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the vehicle make Yamaha, style motorcycle, model WR450F, with license plate [Value 168], which was registered with the purpose of concealing the illicit origin derived from drug trafficking in the name of [Name 236] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process […] 5.13 During the period between the month of January 2018 and the month of October 2020, the accused person identified as [Name 050], with the purpose of inserting, diversifying, and stratifying the money derived from drug trafficking, recruited his sister, the accused ([Name 016]), to provide her function as a front person in order to conceal the illicit origin of personal property, such as high-end vehicles, which were acquired by the criminal group with money derived from drug trafficking, an activity of which the accused ([Name 016]) had full knowledge. Among the vehicles registered in the name of the accused are the following: Vehicle make Volkswagen, style Jetta MK6, license plate [Value 032], which maintains a value of 9,022,000.00 (nine million twenty-two thousand colones), vehicle make BMW, style X5, with a value of $37,930.00 (thirty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty dollars), money that was paid in cash at the agency Bavarian Motors CR S.A by the accused on September 6, 2019, and a vehicle make Ford, style Ranger, license plate [Value 034], valued at the sum of ₡15,000,000.00 (fifteen million colones). 5.14 During the period between the month of January 2018 and the month of October 2020, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001], with the purpose of inserting, diversifying, and stratifying the money derived from drug trafficking, delegated to the accused [Name 046] (deceased) the function as a front person in order to conceal the illicit origin of personal property at the registry level, among them the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado T, model 2014, color beige, with license plate [Value 035], which was acquired for the amount of ₡24,710,000.00 in the month of April 2019, a vehicle that was designated for the use of the members of the criminal group and the material execution of illicit activities.\n\n6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, the proceedings of raid, search, and seizure were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the defendants [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts and which is set forth below: 6.1 In the home of the accused [Nombre 001], located in [...], the following evidence was located:\n\n• Three watches of apparent brand TOUS, of different colors and shapes, the first one Gold rose color, with the number on its back 700350130, in its pink packaging, the second with a pink bracelet with the number on its back 700350150 in its pink packaging, the third with a white bracelet with the number on its back 800350750, in its green packaging. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • An apparent gold chain, approximately 54 centimeters long, with an apparent gold pendant in the shape of a cross with apparent precious stones inlaid on its four sides. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A pistol-type firearm, Glock brand, style 17G4, caliber 9x19, black and brown color, serial number BEZC912, with three black magazines and fifty-one gold-colored rounds, twenty of them with the legend on their base \"A USA 9mm LUGER\" and thirty-one with the legend on their base \"S&B 9x9 18\". Used for the protection and development of the criminal activity. • A firearm, silver color with a black grip, Taurus brand, apparent caliber 9mm, with the number TRC82739, two black magazines, one round with the legend on its base FC LUGER 9mm, eight rounds with the legend on their base S&B 9x19 18, seven rounds with the legend on their base BLAZER LUGER 9mm, fourteen rounds with the legend on their base R-P 9mm LUGER. Used for the protection and development of the criminal activity. • A firearm, pistol type, black color, Glock brand, apparent caliber 9x19, with the number BMKC172, two black magazines, Glock brand, one round with the legend on its base SIG 9mm LUGER, one round with the legend on its base S&B 9X19 18, four rounds with the legend on their base WIN 9mm LUGER, six rounds with the legend on their base GFL 9mm LUGER, twenty-two rounds with the legend on their base R-P 9mm LUGER. Used for the protection and development of the criminal activity. • A pistol-type firearm, Smith & Wesson brand, with the number MRJ4172, green with black color, one black magazine Smith & Wesson brand, fifteen rounds with the legend on their base horneady 40 S&W. Used for the protection and development of the criminal activity. • Three hundred sixty-five gold-colored rounds, with the legend on their base R-P 9mm LUGER, forty-one gold-colored rounds with the legend on their base 25 auto Aguila. Used for the protection and development of the criminal group. • An Apple brand cellphone, Iphone style, light blue color, IMEI number 353062105721750, with Movistar brand SIM card, number 8950604201907465407F. • A Samsung brand cellphone, black color, model SM-G532M, series R58K70876FZ, IMEI number 352606/09/573952/8, with Kolbi brand SIM card number 9506010918112643722. • An Apple brand cellphone, Iphone style, black color, model A1778 IMEI number 353806086360842, with Movistar brand SIM card number 8950604101002367034F. • A Sony brand cellphone, white color, Xperia style, model E6553, without micro SD card, with Claro brand SIM card, without visible number. • A Samsung brand cellphone, series R58J579Z9XW, IMEI number 359122/22/08378640/9, black color with a broken screen, with SIM card, Claro brand with the number 8950603017838151283F. • A Black Berry brand cellphone, white and black color, with the number 354359060757376, all of the above in fair condition. • An Apple brand cellphone, Phone style, white color, IMEI 357280096742017, with Claro brand SIM card number 8950603019895108990F, in fair condition, its functioning is unknown. • An Apple brand cellphone, gray color, IMEI number 353912109800259, with Movistar brand SIM card with the number 8950604002001544745. • A HUAWEI brand cellphone, silver color, model ELS-NX9, with IMEI numbers 860996047643018 and 860996047651037, with Claro brand SIM card with the number 8950603017850578231F. • An Apple brand cellphone, Iphone style, black color, IMEI number 356454108524850, with Movistar brand SIM card with the number 8950604202003547387. • An Apple brand tablet, Ipad style, silver color, model A1822, series GHCV2MZ5HLF9, in fair condition. • A black cardboard box containing an apple watch nike brand watch, series 6, white color with its respective charger, a black box containing a white bracelet, its functioning is unknown. • A black cardboard box containing a Samsung brand cellphone, Note 20 Ultra style, rose gold color, IMEI number 359646/20/310481/2, black earphones with its charger, its functioning is unknown. • A Samsung brand cellphone black color, with IMEI numbers 355875/11/115002/1 and 355901/11/115002/5, with its respective charger and earphones. • A cash amount of ¢3,156,000.00 (three million one hundred fifty-six thousand colones) and 3247.00 (three thousand two hundred forty-seven dollars) money and 30.00 Euros (Thirty euros) product of drug trafficking activity. • A black bulletproof vest without visible brand or number, in poor condition. • A laptop computer, HP brand, silver color, without visible number or series, in fair condition, its functioning is unknown. • A black video and photo camera GoPro brand, without visible numbers, its functioning is unknown. • Six sheets with banking documentation and referring to the vehicle license plate [Valor 056] and municipal payments, a black spring notebook with the logo of a yellow vehicle with various annotations of interest, twenty-four sheets referring to weapon carry permits and photographs of drugs, money, and weapons, a USB device of 16 GB, SP silicon power brand green color. • A white folder with red from Purdy Motor, containing a sheet from Ministerio de Justicia y Paz, in the name of [Nombre 081], two sheets from CAFSA, dated 11/12/2019, a sheet from Purdy Motor about a Fortuner vehicle Toyota Brand, a purple folder containing five sheets from the Municipalidad de Santo Domingo de Heredia, dated 12/27/2019, five sheets about product information, five carbone sheets, all in the name of [Nombre 306], a sheet with information on jacuzzi-type bathtubs. • A sedan vehicle, four doors, Toyota brand, Corolla style, year 2016, silver color, with metal plates with the number [Valor 053], with Chassis number 5YFBUVVHEOGP336585, with bodywork and paint in fair condition presenting a scratch on the right side rearview mirror, with RTV and marchamo up to date. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • An all-terrain automobile, four doors, Toyota brand, Land Cruiser Prado style, Beige color, with chassis number JTEBH3FJX0K05006, model 2011, with circulation permit [Valor 024] in fair condition. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Pick Up type vehicle, Mitsubishi brand, L200 sportero style, model 2015, silver color, with chassis number MMBJYKB4OFD001137, circulation permit [Valor 025], in fair condition. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Honda brand motorcycle, model XR190CT, black color, frame number LALMD4392J3060579, engine number MD43E3002432, metal plate [Valor 026]. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Yamaha brand motorcycle, model WR450F, blue color, frame number CJ17C001194, engine number J333E001195, metal plate [Valor 028]. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking.\n\n• A Yamaha motorcycle, model WR450F, blue, frame (marco) number CJ25W002530, engine number J344E003134, license plate [Valor 027]. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. 6.2 Likewise, regarding the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the residence of the accused [Nombre 001], on October 13, 2020, in San José, Tibás, León XIII, alameda #1 south sector, second entrance on the right, corner house, cement, four plants, black with white, the following household goods, acquired with money derived from drug trafficking, were seized: • A stationary metal exercise machine, gray with the legend TTPro Training Station. • A black stationary exercise machine, Everlast brand, with chain accessories and a punching bag. • An elliptical metal bicycle, gray, with the legend FDC19, dual front driver Elliptical concept. • A natural wood King-size bed, with its respective La Coruna brand mattress. • A natural wood King-size bed, with its respective La Coruna brand mattress. • A black wood King-size bed, with decorated upholstery, with its La Coruna brand mattress. • An 86-inch LG brand flat-screen television, series 902RMJF1S100. • A black, wood, double bed (cama matrimonial), with its respective La Coruna brand mattress. 6.3 Regarding the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in [...], a residence owned by the accused [Nombre 001], the following result was obtained: • An LG brand flat-screen television, with a silver frame (marco), LB5800-513, series 408 RMHRLP-721, a second Hitachi brand screen, black, model 65R80, series number TH8EL11811. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Hitachi brand flat-screen television, black, LCD, TV, model 65R80, series TH8E111848, with its respective remote control. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black and white, model SM-J500M/DS, with IMEI 352137/07/871127/6, IMEI 352138/07/871127/4, and Movistar SIM card 8950604001910486717F. Used for the development of narco-activity. 6.4 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in Heredia, Santo Domingo, Residencial [Nombre 056], 75 meters west of the Santo Domingo Clinic, a residence owned by the accused [Nombre 001], the following result was obtained: • A total amount of cash in the sum of ₡84,000 (eighty-four thousand colones) and $305.00 (three hundred five dollars), money generated from drug trafficking activity. • An ASUS brand laptop, model GL7040, series number K4NRCV04E9811, with its respective base with fans and cables. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A black desktop computer, with serial number 1616C114500283, also a black monitor, MSI brand, and its respective power and connection cables. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • Three video game chairs, one green and black with the legend Scorpion, another black and yellow with the legend \"Igaming,\" and the other black and red, with the legend \"Gamdias.\" Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A three-door refrigerator, LG brand, series MEZ66414020, silver, Inverter Linear model, with dents on all sides. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A microbus-type vehicle, Hyundai brand, H1 style, brown, circulation plates [Valor 029], engine number D4CEND305843 and chassis number KMJWA37KBEU579386, acquired with money derived from drug trafficking and intended for the development of the criminal organization. 6.5 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in [...], a residence used by the accused [Nombre 001] as a safe house, the following result was obtained, corresponding to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, gray, with a Claro brand SIM card numbered 8950603018872571857, and an Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, gold and white, with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010718111699299. • An Apple brand telephone, iPhone model, gold, with a Claro brand SIM card numbered 8950603019905557004F. • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, silver, with a SIM card bearing the letter M, numbered 8950604201911583807F. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gold, with IMEI numbers 359271070510940 and 359272070510948. • A silver iPad, model A2069, serial: DMPD905VPV1T. • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, pink, with a Claro brand SIM card, numbered 8950603016821303919F. • An HP brand laptop, black, model 15-DA0006LA with its respective charger. • A TCL brand television screen, gray, model 65P1USI, with its respective TCL brand remote control. • An LG brand television screen, black, model 60UK6200SA, series 906RMAQ3J248. • A ZIF brand television screen, black, model Z55Y065, series number K-16050. • A HAIER brand television screen, black, model LE55b8500DA. • A SANKEY brand television screen, black, model Cled 5051D3, with its respective control. • A TCL brand television screen, black, model 65P1USI, with its respective remote control. 6.6 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in [...], a residence used by the accused [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], and ([Nombre 013]) as a domicile and a collection center for weapons, drugs, and money derived from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, IMEI number 866223030330196, Sim card without visible branding numbered 8950604402808424655 and a Samsung brand micro SD card. Used for the development of criminal activity. • A Samsung brand cell phone, blue, with IMEI number 357716087681490, a white Sim card without visible branding numbered 8950604401712850476F, and an 8GB black micro SD card. Used for the development of criminal activity. • Photographically recorded, a Glock brand firearm case with adhesive tape where the name [Nombre 022] is observed; the weapon model is a Glock 17, 9x19 caliber, series BEZC912. • Photographically recorded, eight radio intercoms with six headset bases and chargers. • Photographically recorded, a bulletproof vest with no visible brand or series. • Photographically recorded, a Banco Nacional digital signature card in the name of [Nombre 022] and three weapon carry permits in the name of [Nombre 022]. • Photographically recorded, a firearm case, Glock brand, model Glock 17, 9x19 caliber, series BMKC172. • A black signal device with the legend \"4T-006,\" series 021635, with its respective charger, five antennas, and a vehicle current charger, all inside a box. • A bank deposit receipt for 354,600 colones, depositor [Nombre 022], document number 14121040. Dollar purchase receipt for $600, colones to pay 354,600, document number 14105387. • A pistol-type firearm, Beretta brand, filed serial number, with the number 666 stamped on the barrel, with a black magazine containing 15 unfired 9mm caliber cartridges. • Three hundred eighty-nine unfired 7.62 x 39 caliber cartridges. • A pistol-type firearm, 9x19 caliber, black, Taurus brand, series TF056301, with a black magazine and 16 unfired 9mm caliber cartridges. • A pistol-type firearm, 9x19 caliber, black, Glock brand, series PFA677, with a black magazine with a 16-cartridge capacity and two black magazines each with a 30-cartridge capacity, containing 21 unfired 9x19 caliber cartridges. • A pistol-type firearm, 9mm caliber, black, Beretta brand, series 1108590, a black magazine for 15 cartridges containing 15 unfired cartridges, and a sound suppressor. • Three hundred twenty unfired 5.56 caliber cartridges, 3 magazines, and one extra-capacity magazine. • A .40 caliber pistol magazine with a 28-cartridge capacity containing 13 unfired .40 caliber cartridges. • A steel plate or die with a pattern of circles on the bottom. • Five hundred twenty-dollar American bills for a total of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars), money that was the product of the criminal activity carried out by the criminal group, which was intended for insertion into the national financial market, and which was stored at that property by the accused [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], and ([Nombre 013]). 6.7 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in [...], used by the defendant [Nombre 161] (currently a fugitive), the following result was obtained, corresponding to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone with two IMEIs, No. 1:869221041112840, IMEI No. 2:869221041148851, containing a Movistar SIM No. 8950604101007632262F, and a Samsung brand cell phone with IMEIs 359207090408582 and 359208090408580, containing a Movistar chip with number 8950604301611229964F. • A Samsung brand cell phone with IMEI 3534630852683350, with a Kolbi brand SIM card No. 8950601011711206506. • Four Banco Nacional receipts numbered 06155140, 06145571, 06177537, and 06157824, regarding money deposits. • A Toyota brand vehicle, ECHO model, gold, with metallic circulation plate [Valor 045], Sedan, chassis number JTDBT1235Y0005400, used by the criminal group for the development of narco-activity. • A Yamaha brand motorcycle, black and gray, with metallic circulation plate [Valor 081], frame (marco) number ME1RG2659J2003276, used by the criminal group for the development of narco-activity.\n\n6.8 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], the following result was obtained, and they correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A black and pink notebook with the legend Femme, with the brand on the upper right edge \"El líder\" with a total of (98) pages containing notes of various accounts. • A gray cellular telephone, brand Huawei, model Huawei MLA-L02, with no visible IMEI. • A black cellular telephone, brand Nokia, with IMEI number 352905101877359, with a SIM card, brand Movistar, with the number 8950604001911308753F. • A total amount of cash money of ¢323,000.00 colones (Three hundred twenty-three thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused. • A money receipt to third parties from the Ministerio de Justicia y Paz, CAI Vilma Curling Rivera, in the name of [Name 029], with an adhesive sheet bearing the name of [Name 155]. • An Apple brand cellular telephone, model iPhone, color pink, IMEI 355734070780270, with a SIM card with no visible brand, numbered 8950604302807581416; additionally, a Samsung brand cellular telephone, color black, was collected, with IMEI 355286105100636, IMEI #2 355286105100644, with a Movistar SIM card numbered 8950604001907110389F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand, 4GB. • A Huawei brand cellular telephone, color black, IMEI 866368040451035, with a Claro brand SIM card numbered 3950603018885857562F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand, 4GB. 6.9 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 030] and [Name 033], the following result was obtained, and they correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand telephone, color blue, with IMEI #1: 869892042128470, IMEI #2: 869892042148486, with Claro brand SIM card numbered 8950603019910340834F. • A Samsung brand telephone, color blue, with IMEI number 359770/10/853192/7, with Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112543185. A Samsung brand telephone, color red, with IMEI number 359770/10/648523/3 with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112767917. • A Samsung brand telephone, color black, with IMEI #1: 359060/09/653228/9, IMEI #2: 359061/09/653228f7, with SIM card numbered 8950604302809752916. • An iPhone brand cellular telephone, color black, with a broken screen, with no serial number or visible IMEI, with Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112612634. • A total amount of cash money of $517 (Five hundred seventeen dollars) and ¢705,000.00 (seven hundred five thousand colones), money that was generated from drug trafficking activity. • A Samsung brand Tablet, color gray, model BT-PS100, with IMEI number 354077/05122539819. A Samsung brand telephone, color black, containing a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506011113211672736 and a 4GB SD card, Kingston brand. • An iPhone brand telephone, color black, with IMEI number 012851001506544, without a SIM card. A Samsung brand telephone, color black, with IMEI number 355878105/66783512, with a Movistar brand SIM card numbered 8950604202704339761. A Nokia brand telephone, color black, model N8-00. • A USB storage device, ADATA brand, 16GB. • A USB storage device, Kingston brand DTSE-9, 16GB. • A USB storage device, Sandisk brand, 8GB. A USB storage device, Kingston brand Datatravelier, 2GB. • An 8GB microSD card. Two Adata brand microSD cards, 8GB each. • A Kingston 2GB microSD card. • A Kingston brand 16GB microSD card. • A Samsung brand 16GB microSD card. • A Radioshack brand 128GB microSD card. • A portable hard drive, Adata Superior SH02 brand, color black with white. • A GPS detector, model k18, color black, with its respective charger and antenna. • An iPhone brand cellular telephone, color gray, with IMEI number 359234060064211 with Movistar brand SIM card numbered 8950644027401423570. • A flat screen, Samsung brand, color black, with serial number 086M3CBMA08590E, with its respective wall mount. • A curved television screen, Samsung brand, color black, with serial number 07CU3CCDK809440D, with its respective wall mount. • Two hundred four 9.9 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. Thirty-one 0.25 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. Two hundred 5.56 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. Thirty-three 0.40 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. One hundred 7.62x39 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. Four 7.7x26 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. • A Toyota brand vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado TXL style, all-terrain, year 2020, color white, vehicle license plate [Value 179], with VIN number JTEBH3FJ1L5105166, engine number 1KDB039378, with its respective documents (certificate of title, hoja de revisión Técnica and right of circulation). • A money receipt number 0355856, dated 04/29/2020, in the name of [Name 033] for an amount of fifty dollars, from the company Purdy Motor S.A.; 6.10 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 050], the following result was obtained, and they correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • Photographically fixed only: several transparent plastic bags of regular size, two packages of transparent plastic bags, as well as supplies for drug dosing. • Ten unfired rounds of ammunition, gold colored with the legend \"A\", sixty-one unfired 9mm rounds of ammunition, nine unfired rounds of ammunition with the legend \"Aguila 38 SPL\", twenty-seven unfired rounds of ammunition with the legend \"40 S&VV\", five unfired rounds of ammunition with the legend \"357 SIG RP\". • Photographically fixed: two electric scales, one black and one white, a box of transparent plastic bags, an identity card in the name of [Name 051]. • A notebook with the legend \"Scribe\" with various notes (14 pages). • Three Apple brand cellular telephones, model iPhone S, the first with IMEI 358571073190927, the second IMEI 355765074963665, the third 355432070735747, and a Samsung brand telephone with IMEI #1 358516/08/883589/10, IMEI #2 358517/08/883589/8, all without SIM card or memory card. • A firearm, pistol type, Smith & Wesson brand, series DWB8446, with its respective magazine and thirteen unfired rounds of ammunition with the legend 9mm Luger RP. • A white shirt which contains a ballistic protection vest. • Thirteen pages corresponding to an offer and advance payment for the purchase of a BMW X5 vehicle and eight money receipts from bank transactions. • A total amount of cash money of one million eight hundred eight thousand five hundred colones, product of the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused. • A gold-colored chain, with red and blue inlays, two gold-colored slave-type bracelets, three gold-colored rings, a gold-colored pendant with the legend \"Red Bull\", all of the foregoing apparently gold. • Five watches, the first Fossil brand, color black, the second Tissot brand, color gold, the third Nixon brand, with camouflage print, the fourth Diesel brand, color gold, and the fifth Rolex brand, color silver and gold. • Photographically fixed: three vehicle keys with electronic control, the first corresponds to a Volkswagen vehicle with registration [Value 169], the second and third controls correspond to a BMW vehicle and an identity card in the name of number [Name 050] [Value 170]. • An Apple brand telephone, iPhone model, with IMEI 357264092904086, without SIM card. • A Samsung brand telephone with IMEI 3544621035 64542 and IMEI two 354463103564540, with Movistar SIM card 8950604201907428843F and a 64 GB memory card. • An Apple brand telephone, iPhone model, with IMEI 354453062996809, with SIM card with no visible brand 8950604402801689676, a Huawei brand telephone with 867265037177269 without memory card or SIM card, all in poor condition. • Seventeen transparent plastic wrappers of regular size containing apparent marijuana, all of them vacuum sealed. Drug that was intended to be commercialized by the criminal group. • A recorder, Q SEE SCAN VIEW brand, series MAC 0018AE52DE8A, with its respective HDMI and power cable. • A BMW brand vehicle, X5 style, year 2004, plate [Value 049], which was acquired by the accused with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Toyota brand vehicle, Fortuner style, circulation plate [Value 050], which was acquired by the accused with money derived from drug trafficking. 6.11. Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in San José, Tibás, León XIII, alameda #1, northern sector, last two-story corner house on the left hand side., used by the accused [Name 046], the following result was obtained, and they correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A firearm, pistol type, Sig Sauer brand, model SP2009, series SP0035550, 9 mm caliber, a magazine, and 15 unfired 9 mm caliber rounds of ammunition.\n\nUsed to carry out criminal activity.
• A Huawei brand cell phone, black, in poor condition, cracked screen, with IMEI 868188044384844, with a Movistar brand SIM card with the number 8950604002902240575. Used to carry out criminal activity. • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, gold, in poor condition, IMEI 354387065082656, with a Movistar brand SIM card with the number 8950604201003881846F, an Apple cell phone, iPhone style, gray, IMEI 355765074149955, Claro brand SIM card number 8950603019905649355F. Used to carry out criminal activity. • A Glock brand 9 mm firearm ammunition magazine and one hundred twenty-seven 9 mm caliber rounds. • A total amount of cash of four million six hundred twenty-three thousand colones, money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused ([Name 046]) • A gun case containing a 9 mm ammunition magazine, three 12-gauge shotgun rounds, and various accessories, two gun cases and tactical articles including boots, jackets, and a helmet. • Two packages of vacuum-seal bags, a black scale, a white cutting board with residues of apparent marijuana, a Sarki brand vacuum-sealing machine, a glass container with plant residues of apparent marijuana, supplies used for drug dosing. • A magnetic GPS tracking device, TKISTAR brand, black. • Three invoices from [Name 292], numbers 18493, 19018, 19019 in the name of [Name 046] and a folio from Purdy Motor Agency, delivery of vehicle with license plate [Value 208]. • A yellow Skipper brand notebook with 39 folios of various notes. • Four rings of apparent gold, a bracelet of apparent gold, and a chain with a pendant of apparent gold, jewelry acquired with money from drug trafficking. • A Samsung brand black screen with no visible data and a black remote control with the legend PG. • A white video recorder, Hikvision brand, a mouse controller, power cable, and HDMI cable. • A black long-sleeved shirt, size M, with the legend \"PCD Police\" and the flag of Costa Rica. A black bulletproof vest, Blindajes Colombianos brand, number 170418, a black bulletproof vest, Second Chance brand. • A blue vehicle, year 2017, Toyota brand, metal plates, [Value 030], engine number 1KDV862619, chassis number MROHZ8CD5H0405001, in fair condition; inside the vehicle, four transparent bags containing apparent marijuana-type drug. Drugs that were in possession intended by the accused to be commercialized with third parties by the accused [Name 046]. 6.12 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located at [...], used by the accused [Name 010], the following result was obtained and corresponds to objects acquired with money from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, Leica style, black with two IMEIs, 869103042154338 and 8691103042162539, and a SIM card number 8950604402809759547, and a Samsung brand cell phone, gray with two IMEIs, 357474096804865 and 35747509804862, and with a SIM card number 8950604101002903973F. • A total amount of cash of ¢ 1,611,000.00 colones (one million six hundred eleven thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking and commercialization activity that was carried out by the accused [Name 010]. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black, IMEI 35694910/094681/1 and 356950/10/094681. • A Samsung brand cell phone, white, IMEI 357098101662214, and a Samsung brand tablet, black, with the photograph of [Name 010]. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gold, IMEI 359878/06/905261R, in poor condition. • A Huawei brand cell phone, blue, SIM card number 950642020149289. • A Swann brand recorder, black, with its respective cables. 6.13 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located at [...], used by the accused [Name 016] the following result was obtained and corresponds to objects acquired with money from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, blue with purple, with IMEIs 868139049562744 and IMEI 868139049586750, in fair condition, SIM card with non-visible phone number. • A Huawei brand cell phone, gray, with no visible IMEI and a cracked screen. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black, with IMEI 356017/07/356627/7, with its back cover cracked. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gray, with IMEI 351712/10/099841/3 and IMEI 351713/10099841/1. • A total amount of cash of ¢3,321,000.00 (three million three hundred twenty-one thousand colones), and $60 (sixty dollars), money that was generated from the criminal activity of drug sales carried out by the accused ([Name 016]). • A Samsung brand cell phone, pink, with a cracked screen, IMEI 3585518/08/872698/2 and the IMEI 358517/08/872698/0. • A Samsung A10 brand cell phone, red, with IMEI 358100/10/833702/9. • A Huawei brand cell phone, model JKMLX3, black, with two IMEI numbers, the first IMEI 866861049485004, the second IMEI 866861049520016, with a cracked screen, in fair condition, with its Sandisk 16gb black SD card and Movistar SIM card series 89506041010026535607. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, model JKM-LX3, with IMEI 865365042597741, with the 51)8613 black Adita brand card, with the SIM card series 8950604401712274511f, in fair condition. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, with two IMEIs, the first 865163044717965 and the second 865163044757979, in fair condition, with a white and red Claro SIM card with series number 8950603018885859646F, without an SD card. • A non-lethal gun, Glock style, 9mm, series 2016N061733, black, 35 gold-colored rounds with the legend blazer 9mm luger brand, two unfired 12-gauge rounds, super x, western brand. • A digital video recorder with serial number D63292428, white, with its respective power adapter» [sic] (cfr. folios 276 to 321 of the indictment). The transcribed facts retain the wording that was stated in the indictment, except for the suppression of some references or points from the statement of facts —such as, for example, those identified as 4.30, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, and 5.12— because they were not proven or did not correspond to the trial, as they refer to absent or fugitive defendants. The inclusion in the proven facts of information not found contained in the statement of facts of the indictment has been discarded—which was recognized by the defense in its appeal, when affirming that the proven facts are identical to those charged—, although there is a correction in points 4.15 and 4.16, in which the year 2020 was changed to 2019, which constitutes a material error —this point will be elaborated further on—. Having clarified the above, it is necessary to verify whether the charging of [Name 001] was adequate and whether it enabled the effective exercise of her technical and material defense. This Chamber considers that the answer to that question is affirmative. The first thing that must be pointed out is that the analysis of the criminal charge cannot be done in the abstract, but must necessarily address the specific characteristics of the criminal phenomenon in question. Although there is a general rule that the statement of facts must be clear, precise, and detailed —Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—, this requirement cannot be understood inflexibly or statically, because not all crimes, nor all criminal phenomena, can be addressed in the same manner, since contexts vary. The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution No. 2021-01459, at 10:27 a.m., on December 9, 2021 —which this Chamber shares— stated the following regarding the subject under study: «In accordance with what has been described, the requirements of the accusatory pleading are set forth in article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates: \"Indictment and request to proceed to trial. When the Public Prosecutor's Office considers that the investigation provides grounds to bring the accused to public trial, it shall file the indictment requesting the commencement of trial. The indictment must contain: […] b) The precise and detailed statement of the punishable act attributed […] Therefore, the aforementioned subsection a) of that normative precept bears a significant link with the right to defense and the principle of imputation, since, taking as a starting point the factual circumstances attributed in the prosecutorial accusation, the accused will have the power to materialize their material and technical defense, however, the requirement regarding the determination of temporal, modal, and spatial situations will depend on the type of illicit act attributed to the defendant and the particularities of the case. That is, the balance with the right to defense is not disputed, being essential that the accused party can understand the conduct they are charged with in order to refute it» [sic] (emphasis supplied). In this case, we are faced with a complex criminal phenomenon, attributed to a criminal organization composed of a multiplicity of people at different hierarchical levels, which is charged with acts that extend over several months and constitute various criminal offenses. It is not possible, then, to apply the same parameters as to common crime, because, although acts constituting drug trafficking and money laundering are charged here, they cannot receive the same treatment, nor can the same formulation be expected as for another illicit act of the same nature, such as, for example, a drug transport caught in flagrante delicto, whose characteristics of time, place, and manner are established with great ease. Not in vain does domestic legislation, in accordance with international law, recognize as organized crime that phenomenon which presents: «1) Collective participation. A group composed of three or more persons, which has not been formed fortuitously for the immediate commission of a crime. 2) Organized group. That it is a group with an organized structure, because there is a specific role or task for each member of the group. 3) Permanence over time. That it exists for a certain time or for an indefinite period. 4) Concerted action to commit crimes. That it acts in concert with the purpose of committing one or more serious crimes» (Article 9 of Law No. 9481. In the same sense, Article 2(a) of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime). Precisely because of the complexity involved in addressing a phenomenon of this nature, the indictment cannot be expected to contain a description of each individual act or material thing that was carried out, since in these contexts, responsibility is based on the contribution made to the overall plan. To require that the charging of a criminal organization contain the same detail or structure as common crime implies ignoring the characteristics of that phenomenon, which requires a more comprehensive approach. An adequate charge against criminal organizations must include, then, the period during which the illicit activity took place, the place or places of operation, the internal structure of the group, including its operation and hierarchy, the illicit purpose, and, especially, the role each defendant played within that criminal network. The foregoing in no way implies that the typical structure of each crime should be overlooked within the charge, which is why the illicit purpose —which is nothing more than the subsumption of the facts into a criminal type— must be expressly stated; however, in this type of phenomenon, not every member of the criminal organization directly carries out the typical verb and that does not undermine the possibility of attributing criminal responsibility to them, in which case the determining factor will be the clear and express establishment of the contribution they made to the configuration of the illicit act. In this sense, the lack of attribution of a typical verb to each defendant individually does not delegitimize the charge if from the narration of facts, viewed comprehensively, the conduct charged and its impact on the overall act constituting the crime can be sufficiently understood. \n\nIn this regard, as the Third Chamber correctly noted in resolution No. 2012-911, at 09:11 a.m., of June 15, 2012: \"The statement of facts contained in the indictment is a logical unit and should not be divided, except when it contains different events that are mutually exclusive,\" which takes on even greater meaning when complex criminal phenomena are charged. As a corollary to the foregoing, the specification of facts that enables the right of defense cannot disregard the phenomenon being charged; consequently, what is relevant is that, based on the description provided, the facts fit a specific criminal offense and that the accused can understand the role attributed to them in the achievement of that unlawful act. The foregoing requirements are met in the indictment filed in this case. As has already been indicated in other sections of this ruling, the first fact of the charging document describes the existence of the criminal organization and its composition through the identification of its members. Furthermore, it clearly establishes the unlawful purpose, which corresponds to mid-scale drug trafficking; the places where said activity took place; and the period. Regarding the temporal delimitation, which was set between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, it is necessary to point out that, as already stated, one of the characteristics of a criminal organization is its duration over time, but, in addition, the primary offense charged, which corresponds to drug trafficking, is a permanent or continuing offense, which does not end until the activity ceases, whether by the decision of the active subject or by causes beyond their control that prevent them from continuing the activity (See rulings No. 2000-1018, at 10:36 a.m., of September 1, 2000, of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and No. 2025-89, at 4:25 p.m., of January 20, 2025, of the Sentence Appeals Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José). Hence, the setting of a broad temporal parameter does not constitute imprecision, but rather arises from the very nature of the criminal phenomenon charged. The second fact of the charging document describes the operational model of the criminal organization, detailing the manner in which drug trafficking and the handling of the profits derived from it were carried out. Next, the third fact, which is among the most relevant, establishes the role of each of the members of the criminal organization. In the case of [Name 001], it is indicated that they held the leadership role, and were therefore responsible for the direction, supervision, and coordination of the group and the unlawful activities it carried out, which are described. From these initial facts, circumstances of time, place, and manner are thus obtained, as well as the distribution of functions for the development of the criminal activity of drug trafficking. The following points of the prosecutorial indictment, contained in section 4, refer to specific acts carried out by each of the accused related to drug trafficking — except for points 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, which allude to money laundering (legitimación de capitales) —; section 5 describes the offense of money laundering and the specific acts attributed to each defendant. In none of these is [Name 001] described as performing any of the typical verbs; however, it is clarified that the defendants to whom they are attributed acted under their instruction or delegation, which constitutes a clear connection of the subject to the criminal activity. From the foregoing, it can be deduced, then, that the prosecutorial indictment does clearly, precisely, and in a detailed manner describe the phenomenon attributed to the criminal organization and the role that [Name 001] played in achieving the unlawful ends. By virtue of the foregoing, the accused had the opportunity to know the facts being attributed to them and to structure their technical and material defense; consequently, no violation of their rights is verified. It is true that the trial court did not dwell on a specific analysis of the indictment, but rather limited itself to pointing out: \"In another of his arguments, the defense attorney criticizes the indictment, considering it imprecise and devoid of a proper charge; the court dismisses the argument, as the conducts described in the indictment do charge conducts that qualify as the crime of drug trafficking, committed in co-authorship\" (cf. page 789 of the judgment). The foregoing, although a brief response, does express the court's stance, in that it did not agree with the defense that the indictment contained a flawed charge. Furthermore, the issuance of a conviction based on the facts charged is the greatest evidence that the trial court did not deem the defense's claim to be valid. The appellant states that the indictment placed the temporal framework of the facts between April 2018 and March 2019, which in their opinion implies a limit that does not allow any event outside that parameter to be considered proven. However, in the first fact, the delimitation of the period in which the organization operated is made and, expressly, it is indicated that it spanned from April 2018 to October 2020, so it is evident that in point 4, when 2019 was indicated as the year of completion, this corresponds to a clerical error (error material). In any case, in the facts subsequently described within that section 4 — 4.1 to 4.45 — the specific date of each event is established, so this clerical error has no significance whatsoever. The defense is not correct in stating that facts outside that temporal parameter could not be considered proven, as a full reading of the facts charged allows one, precisely, to understand that it is a clerical error. Furthermore, as already stated, the events that are itemized contain specific dates, which is what must be considered. Moreover, the evidence gathered in this case, which was accessible to the parties from the investigation stage, allowed the technical and material defense to learn of the events attributed to the defendants, as well as the dates on which they were located. In addition to the foregoing, the appellant insists that it was necessary that, in each of the facts where their client is mentioned, a specific date be set on which [Name 001] gave the order, instruction, or delegation to the other defendants, thereby seeking a piecemeal analysis of the facts. However, as already stated, the indictment must be viewed in its entirety, because it describes facts against a criminal organization that continued operating over several months and in which each of its members had a defined task. In the case of [Name 001], the role attributed was that of leadership and coordination of the criminal activity, within the temporal parameter already indicated, that is, from April 2018 to October 2020, so it was not necessary to delimit the time and date of each specific order, because in the framework of the criminal organization, what is relevant is that it was stated that the criminal activities conforming to the typical verbs — of which there are more specific dates — were carried out by their mandate. Regarding the defense's complaint concerning the lack of knowledge of the quantity of drugs handled in each case, this is a circumstance that does not have the significance that the defense seems to assign to it. It can be seen that the indictment stated that drug trafficking was carried out on a mid-scale and that its destination was to supply other organizations and final consumers. Whether quantities of drugs were handled that did or did not allow for the understanding that their purpose was personal consumption is an aspect that corresponds to the evidentiary analysis, not to the indictment, because the indictment describes a specific purpose, which is to deliver them to third parties. The defense contends that there was a violation of the principle of correlation between the indictment and the sentence (principio de correlación entre acusación y sentencia), but attributes it to the setting of a broad temporal parameter, which reveals a confusion between this principle and that of the indictment (principio de imputación). The comparison of the statement of facts contained in the charging document and the proven factual matrix leads to the affirmation that they are essentially the same, except for the suppression of some peripheral circumstances and facts, on the occasion of the information generated during the trial. No circumstance was included that affected the core of the charge, and even the defense itself acknowledges in its appeal that the facts bear identity. The only variation made was concerning the year in which facts 4.15 and 4.16 were set, changing from the year 2020 to 2019, which, as already noted, corresponds to the correction of a clerical error, which is authorized by section 348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). This aspect was addressed when hearing the appeal filed on behalf of [Name 015], [Name 022], and [Name 013] — to which reference is made for its reading —; however, it is reiterated that the fact falls within the temporal parameter set at the beginning of the indictment, that is, between April 2018 and October 2020; furthermore, the evidence on which it is based was known to the parties from the investigation stage, so it was not an unknown circumstance, nor was it surprising to the appellants. The defense states that it was not possible to substitute or expand the indictment with a different or more extensive narrative to the detriment of the accused. Reference has been made to this circumstance in other sections of this ruling. In this case, the investigation covered a period of more than two years, such that at trial a large number of events were reconstructed, even some that are not constitutive of a crime, as it was necessary to know the existing dynamics among the accused persons. The foregoing in no way means that the defendants were convicted for uncharged facts. The indictment concerned a criminal phenomenon that fit the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering, which was not exceeded in the sentence, given that both were considered proven in the terms described in the statement of facts charged. On the other hand, the acquittal ordered in favor of the defendant [Name 007] for the unlawful act of money laundering warrants a differentiated analysis, as said defendant was not assigned a particular role in the statement of facts charged for the achievement of said crime, but was mentioned only in point 5, which corresponds to a general statement of the offense. Therefore, the trial court determined that the specific conduct they would have performed was not detailed and, for that reason, acquitted them. The situation of [Name 001] is not comparable to that of any of the remaining defendants, because they were assigned the role of leadership and direction of the criminal acts carried out by the criminal organization. Thus, the particular analysis performed in favor of [Name 007] cannot be described as an error of coherence or an internal contradiction of the judgment, because it addresses a very particular situation that affected the latter and from no point of view is it comparable to the charge made against [Name 001]. Based on the circumstances set forth, as none of the errors invoked by the technical defense are verified, the ground is declared without merit (sin lugar).\n\n1. **Third ground for appeal filed by the private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Name 001].** Accuses \"Disagreement with the assessment of evidence, lack of analytical reasoning (fundamentación analítica), violation of the rules of sound critical judgment (sana crítica racional) and breach of the principle of logical derivation (principio de derivación lógica).\" Alleges that the trial court only granted credibility to the prosecution's evidence, detracting value from the defense's evidence without performing an objective analysis of the latter. Points out that only the evidentiary elements favoring a conviction were considered, deliberately omitting specific aspects that benefited the accused. Adds that the judicial resolution contains internal contradictions, affirming facts that are later disproven in the same ruling. States that the referral of the indictment to the judge of the intermediate stage was objected to, without the accused being duly notified regarding the related cases 18000017-1219-PE (Case \"Bueno,\" charged in 4.6), 19-014179-0042-PE (Case \"Cementerio,\" charged in 4.34), and 19-000160-0622-PE (Case \"[Name 269],\" charged in 4.38). Transcribes what was resolved in the judgment on this point and subsequently maintains that said conclusion is erroneous. Argues that the accused must have the opportunity to address the attributed facts before the indictment is referred to the judge of the intermediate stage. Highlights that the accused and their defense requested an investigative statement (indagatoria) for those summary proceedings, without being attended to by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público). Reproduces a passage from the investigative statement conducted by the Public Prosecutor's Office, where it is recorded which facts they were formally notified of (intimado), specifically summaries 18-000017-1219-PE and 19014179-0042-PE, which were not added to the file when their client was questioned, so they did not know what those events were and had no opportunity to defend themselves. States that even the first pretrial detention order was based on those events, without the defense knowing what they involved. Indicates that the defendant submitted a filing (cf. page 3320) requesting that the content of those summaries be formally notified to them (imposición) and that the Public Prosecutor's Office's response, months later, was that the cases were added to the record, but they were not called to a new investigative statement. Argues \"that it is absurd, as the court understands it, that the mere fact that [Name 001], by the time of trial, had knowledge of the cases, meant that the defect had disappeared; it is evident that this is not the way, because what Article 309 intends is to give the accused person the possibility to make a statement, not that they know the file.\" Warns that, according to the trial court, the accused was not named in those summaries, which is why they did not need to be summoned for a new formal notification (intimación), but then includes them among the proven facts. Transcribes passages from pages 409, 682, 688, and 690 of the judgment in support of their position. Emphasizes that, if their client was not an accused in those summaries, it was not possible to convict them for those facts.\n\nHe states that in the \"Varela\" case the defendant is not mentioned, only in the reports of the present matter \"in order to achieve a materialization (materialización), with respect to the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas)\". He accuses that an attempt was made to intercept the subject known as [Nombre 269] and link him to [Nombre 001], but the criminal judge rejected the request, which is why he asserts there is no link between the subjects. He points out that, according to the accusation, his client designated [Nombre 309] to carry drugs to the organization, in contrast to what was stated at trial by witnesses [Nombre 093] and [Nombre 310], who denied that situation. Likewise, he reviews part of the statement of [Nombre 142], [Nombre 325] and [Nombre 092]. He asserts that the Public Prosecutor's Office simply omitted to expand the investigative statement (declaración indagatoria) of the accused, despite it serving as the basis for the conviction. He adds that it was not possible to transfer the file to a preliminary hearing without that act being completed. He argues that an absolute defect was incurred that is not capable of being validated. He describes that all the witnesses assured at trial that their knowledge of the summary proceedings derived from the telephone interceptions. In addition, the trial court also considered the facts proven based on the information derived from them. He reports that at trial, 264 calls in total were heard in which the accused intervenes, and in none of these does he give orders to the other co-defendants to deal drugs, weapons, money, or to purchase goods with money from drug trafficking. He qualifies the telephone interception as an amphibological indicator, which can only be assessed if there is materialization (materialización), a step that is lacking. He points out that no controlled purchases were made, nor raids in which drugs were seized, because the materializations (materializaciones) are from other cases in which no person from the present summary proceedings was investigated. He highlights that in relation to the \"Bueno\" and \"Cementerio\" cases, it was not possible to establish that what was transported and marketed by [Nombre 029] was drugs. He affirms that the testimony of [Nombre 092], who was the most important witness of the investigation, was not transcribed completely and that the trial court recorded false information in the judgment about that statement, because it omitted to include 23 questions and answers from the defense, in which he pointed out that he could not accredit circumstances referring to the central core of the accusation and that benefited the accused. He mentions that with questions 1 to 4, which he transcribes, fact 2 of the accusation is discredited; with questions 5 and 6, fact 4.1; number 7 discredits fact 4.17. He criticizes that facts were considered accredited where [Nombre 046] appears as an accused person, even though he died and the extinction of the criminal action should have been declared. He accuses that it went even further, because the forfeiture of assets related to the deceased was ordered. He reviews questions 8 to 12, then indicates that the prosecution could not prove that his client designated [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] for any illicit action and, despite this, fact 4.1 was considered accredited. From questions 13 to 15 he infers that it discredits any directive from his client for the commercialization of drugs by [Nombre 029] or [Nombre 026]. From question 16 he derives that it completely discredits proven fact 4.13. Based on questions 17 and 18 he questions that the facts in which [Nombre 050] participates were considered proven, even though he was not tried. He adds that, based on the answer provided by the judicial investigator, it was impossible to accredit the numbered facts 4.13 and 4.23. From question 19 he asserts that fact 4.26 is dismissed. He reviews questions 20 to 23, then points out that the officer in charge of the investigation made it clear that in this case no drug seizure was made in more than two years of investigation and that the Public Prosecutor's Office tried to make some link with the parallel cases. He accuses that all these circumstances imply a violation of the principle of correlation (principio de correlación) between accusation and judgment, because there are no specific dates for the facts. He asserts that the accusation does not indicate the concrete evidence that led the court to be convinced of the facts, nor does it describe the communicability of the circumstances or the expanded intent that allowed the imposition of the high prison sentences on his client. He maintains that what was accredited at trial is contrary to the imputed facts and that the court limited itself to copying the factual scenario of the accusation. He castigates that the court assumed the functions of the accusing body to the detriment of his client, because it was not possible to accredit the circumstances of time, place, and manner of the facts in which the accused [Nombre 001] is linked. He indicates that the statements of the witnesses do not allow accrediting the existence of the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). He questions that the responses of witness [Nombre 092] were not considered, despite benefiting his client. He states that, had these responses been assessed, criminal liability could not have been attributed to his client. He castigates that the judgment contains an insufficient and biased analysis of the evidence; that it illegitimately discredited the statement given by the accused and that it was consistent with the documentary evidence. He highlights that, according to the accusation, the defendant's home is located on four lots, despite the fact that evidence was presented showing it covers a single lot. Furthermore, there was evidence of loans of money in large amounts that were not assessed. He reiterates that the testimonial evidence does not allow the accused facts to be considered proven and, despite this, the trial court considered that the evidence was \"overwhelming\". He assures that there was scant reasoning in the judgment, violating the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica), because the evidence was confusing and insufficient and the duty to provide reasons (deber de fundamentación) was violated. As a grievance, he alleges that the erroneous analysis of the evidence resulted in an illegitimate conviction against his client of 20 years in prison. He requests that his client be acquitted or, failing that, that a retrial be ordered; also, that the precautionary measure of preventive detention (prisión preventiva) be set aside. The ground is declared without merit. Contrary to what was affirmed by the technical defense of the defendant [Nombre 001], this Chamber considers that his criminal liability, with respect to the crimes of international drug trafficking (tráfico internacional de drogas) and money laundering (legitimación de capitales), was duly accredited. It is no coincidence that his legal situation is addressed after knowing that of the remaining defendants, because the role attributed to him in the accusation is clearly distinguishable, since he was identified as the leader of the criminal organization and, therefore, as the person in charge of coordinating all the activity carried out by the other co-defendants. Under the logic followed in the accusation and considered proven in the judgment, the criminal actions attributed to [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019] and [Nombre 010] —with the exception of the simple homicide imputed to the latter—, constituting the offenses of aggravated drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas agravado) and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) —reference will be made to this upon considering the appeal filed by the private defender Luis Cubillo Pacheco—, are also attributable to [Nombre 001] as a co-perpetrator (coautor). As already indicated in other sections of this pronouncement, co-perpetration (coautoría) is a form of plural criminal participation, in which a collective act is carried out that is integrated with the individual contributions of the participants. For this reason, it is not necessary for each co-perpetrator to directly execute any of the typical verbs for the offense to be imputable to him; rather, what is relevant is that it was carried out under a common resolution and with essential individual contributions, the sum of which translates into a collective act subsumable under a criminal type. As detailed in the preceding whereas clause (considerando), in the prosecution's accusation it was indicated that, in the distribution of functions and tasks of those investigated, [Nombre 001]: \"was the leader of the criminal organization, in charge of the direction, supervision and coordination of the criminal group, by his own hand or through intermediary members; he maintained control of all the illicit actions carried out by the criminal structure such as: the storage of drug caches belonging to the organization; the transport and distribution of the caches to third groups located in various parts of the country; the commercialization of the drug in areas under the control of the narco gang; the collection and distribution of the money generated by the illicit activity, as well as procuring through multiple actions executed by group members and front men to insert the proceeds derived from the illicit activities into the economy and the national financial system, among others demanded by the drug trafficking business\" (cf. f. 277 of the judgment). We see then that the contribution said defendant made to the collective act, constituting aggravated drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas agravado), was not the direct execution of any of the typical verbs, such as storing, transporting or supplying drugs to third parties —other indictees participated in these actions, as described in the proven facts—, but rather coordinating and directing the entire criminal network, so that those actions could be carried out by the remaining defendants.\n\nIn a significant number of sections, the judgment refers to that circumstance: \"Likewise, the police interest was to link the leader of the organization [Name 001] with the acts that were materially executed by other persons, which would mean that the leader was not present at the time of the execution of the criminal activity -as effectively happened-, as usually occurs in ordinary companies, where it would not be expected that its administrators or managers are the ones who materially distribute the products they trade and, at the same time, are the ones who sell them to final consumers […] In that sense, it must be considered that a criminal organization dedicated to the sale of illicit services and goods has a structure just like an ordinary company, of a hierarchical and pyramidal type, where there is a leader who establishes the mission and vision of his company as well as sub-leaders who are in charge of the organization and planning of the material execution of that initial vision. So that, in conclusion, it is held that a criminal organization has the same bureaucratic and administrative structure as an ordinary one […]. (cf. pp. 325 to 326 of the judgment). In a similar vein, it is stated further on: \"it was evident that the operating model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects such as the storage and dosage of the drug caches acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of caches to the various points of sale, the sale of drug caches owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory, the sale of drug caches owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug dependents, through the properties that the organization held for such purposes like “Bunkers”, as well as on public roads in the areas under the control of the organization, the insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for this purpose the use of various means to that end, it is possible to consider the following entitled factual accusation as proven\" (cf. pp. 374 to 375 of the judgment). Another example, the following allusion: \"Being clear that [Name 001], as leader of the criminal organization was called by his collaborators by the aliases: “[Name 136], [Name 084], that dude”, among others; he had control and leadership over the drug deliveries carried out by the criminal organization through its lower-ranking collaborators\" (cf. pp. 399 to 400 of the judgment). Under that lens of the distribution of tasks and functions typical of a criminal enterprise, the a quo carried out its approach to the facts and the evidence, without any error being verified in that proceeding. It is noted that, when beginning the intellectual reasoning, the trial court clearly stated: \"this jurisdictional authority proceeds from the following premises: (i) a criminal organization has an administrative structure equal or similar to one that executes lawful activities; (ii) circumstantial evidence is the ideal means for weighing the evidentiary material presented during this adversarial proceeding; (iii) it is unnecessary for the leaders of a criminal clan to be the material executors of the criminal acts, if it is inferred from the evidence that they knew of and authorized them; and (iv) the absence of direct evidence, by itself, does not delegitimize the state's punitive claim. Under these premises, the evidentiary material submitted to the adversarial proceeding will be assessed\", an approach that is correct given the particularities of this case, in which an organized crime group was investigated and prosecuted, which meets the characteristics established in numeral 9 of Law No. 9481, namely; \"1) Collective participation. A group composed of three or more persons, which has not been formed fortuitously for the immediate commission of a crime. 2) Organized group. That it is a group with an organized structure, because there is a specific role or task for each member of the group. 3) Permanence over time. That it exists for a certain time or for an indefinite period of time. 4) Concerted action to commit crimes. That it acts in concert with the purpose of committing one or more serious crimes.\" Dealing with organized criminality, it is not surprising that the person who acts as leader does not materially execute the typical conducts, since they operate through a hierarchical and functional structure, in which each of their subordinates performs actions specific to the task assigned to them, aimed at achieving the illicit act. For that reason, the absence of direct material acts does not exclude their responsibility, which derives from the control of the organization and with it, of the criminal activities it carries out. Nor is the absence of direct evidence against them surprising, because in organized structures it is logical that precautions are extreme to not generate a trace of the activity, for which reason their participation must be deduced from circumstantial evidence and the circumstances it reveals, such as, for example, the behavior patterns followed by the persons they relate to, the fact that their activities revolve around them, and the execution of tasks for their benefit. In a scenario like this, service acts that at first glance might seem irrelevant for being part of daily activities, seen together with other behaviors, for example, ensuring secrecy in all the actions of that central figure, avoiding contact with police authorities, constant accompaniment as an escort, among others, constitute clear indicia of a subject's hierarchy over others. If the equation includes that those subordinates simultaneously participate materially in criminal activities, it is possible to conclude that said actions are also performed as subordinates of that person. In that same vein, all those acts that might seem innocuous or inconclusive are nothing more than the display of a division of tasks characteristic of an organized structure. In the case at hand, the leadership position of [Name 001] was duly established based on circumstantial evidence. Throughout the judgment, it is documented that the dynamics of the other accused individuals revolved around [Name 001], both in ordinary tasks, such as taking their pets to the veterinarian, bringing food to their sentimental partner, taking their children to school, as well as in their constant accompaniment, serving as driver, escort, and facilitating their fluid circulation on public roads, evading police presence, which precisely reflects the centrality of that subject's figure with respect to the others. The a quo details situations of this nature from the beginning of the investigation, as extracted from police report IP-297-EN-18, of October 19, 2018, from which it follows that, after receiving the criminal complaint, when they were just beginning to locate and become acquainted with the persons mentioned in it —[Name 029] and [Name 161]—, a particular movement of the subjects of interest around [Name 001] was already denoted, consistent with the criminal complaint which detailed that this subject, known as “[Name 084]” or “[Name 136]”, was the leader of a criminal organization dedicated mainly to drug trafficking. The judgment states that, upon initiating the inquiries, the judicial police had information about conjugal visits that [Name 001] made to their sentimental partner at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center. The various surveillances carried out at the site on the days April 3, 2018, June 15, 2018, June 29, 2018, November 2, 2018, May 29, 2019, June 12, 2019, among others (cf. pp. 59, 338 to 339, 345 to 346, 729 to 728, 736 to 737 of the judgment), made it possible to establish that the accused persons organized themselves to transport them and provide security.\n\n[Nombre 030], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 022], ([Nombre 013]), and [Nombre 161] participated in dynamics of that nature. Based on the evidence produced at trial, the lower court (a quo) was able to reconstruct the operation of the security protocols employed by the defendants, which included the use of several vehicles and even transfers of [Nombre 001] on the routes she traveled:\n\n\"It was documented that on June 15, during surveillance carried out at the El Buen Pastor Penitentiary Center, at 08:10 the vehicle Toyota Prado, license plate [Valor 171], was observed arriving, from which [Nombre 001] descended; then, at 11:31, she left the penitentiary center but boarded the vehicle with license plate [Valor 108]; she continued to the Vizcaya sector in Desamparados to board, at that location, the Toyota Prado again, which had taken her to the penitentiary center; immediately, the vehicle transferred to the León XIII sector, from which it quickly withdrew. (see folios 55-59 of Report IP297-EN-2018). Regarding the vehicle [Valor 108], through inquiries it was linked to [Nombre 029] as the person who paid the last circulation fee and also to [Nombre 312] as the last person who took it for a vehicle technical inspection. Another surveillance was carried out by investigators on June 29, 2018, always in the surroundings of the El Buen Pastor Penitentiary Center; upon starting, two points of interest were set: at 07:46 hours, at the dwelling located in Desamparados, Vizcaya, precisely from the 'Super El Buen Precio,' 75 meters west, the vehicle Toyota Corolla, gray, year 2010, license plate [Valor 108], mentioned in previous surveillances, was parked, and at 07:54 hours, in the surroundings of the El Buen Pastor Penitentiary Center, was the Mitsubishi Montero, wine-colored, year 2001, license plate [Valor 172], driven by [Nombre 029]; then, at 08:12 hours, the Toyota Echo, golden, year 2001, license plate [Valor 071], with tinted windows, luxury rims, arrived at the penitentiary center; [Nombre 001] descended from the vehicle and entered, only to leave at 11:47 hours to board the vehicle Toyota Corolla, license plate [Valor 173], taking a southern route, and the Mitsubishi Montero was traveling in the same direction, guarding said vehicle. Now, with the purpose of obtaining the identity of the driver of the vehicle with license plate [Valor 071] who was identified in the surveillance, the judicial investigators coordinated with the Traffic Police, who identified him as [Nombre 030]\" (cfr. folios 338 to 339 of the judgment).\n\nOne of these visits occurred on November 2, 2018. On that occasion, [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] accompanied [Nombre 001], as reported by the judicial investigators and supported by police reports and the telephone interception. The judgment states:\n\n\"In addition to the interception of communications being active, the judicial investigators continued with field work; surveillances were resumed at the El Buen Pastor Penitentiary Center on the occasion of conjugal visits that [Nombre 001] regularly made to her sentimental partner and person deprived of liberty, [Nombre 081].\n\nThe report sets out the results of the surveillance carried out on November 2, 2018, at the El Buen Pastor correctional facility, where movements were again triggered related to the protection of [Name 001], who was indeed observed entering the conjugal visit. Police identified a Toyota Corolla, light gray, with license plate [Value 108]; another Toyota Echo, gold, license plate [Value 045], with tinted windows and luxury rims; and on the sidewalk located on the east side of El Buen Pastor, [Name 161], ID [Value 109], and in the vicinity, [Name 010], ID [Value 004]. Both the vehicles and the individuals observed were already known beforehand by the judicial investigators as part of the criminal group led by Mr. [Name 001]” [sic] (cf. pages 345 to 346 of the judgment). The lower court (a quo) states that by that date, telephone line [Value 063], assigned to [Name 161], alias “[Name 083]”, was already under intervention; he called [Name 010], with whom he held the following dialogue demonstrating how they prepared for the visit and the strict schedule they kept. The communication corresponds to sequence 0310019, at 10:47:56 hours on November 2, 2018: “Subject called subject of interest and said – Where are you? Subject of interest answered – well, around there. Subject asked – And did you pick up the food and everything? Subject of interest answered – I’m going to pick up [Name 124]. Why? Subject answered – I thought you had to be there already with us, you have to be there with us. Subject of interest asked – But isn’t that thing at eleven twenty, eleven forty? Subject answered – eleven twenty. Subject of interest said – well, damn, it’s not even eleven yet, I was at the bank exchanging some money. Subject said – oh, okay, okay” (Emphasis supplied. Cf. page 346 of the judgment). One of the objectives of those accompaniments was evidenced on that same date as a result of the information arising from the telephone interventions, as it was shown that the defendants were aware of the movement of other vehicles present at the site, as is derived from the following communication between [Name 161] and [Name 010], cited by the lower court (a quo): “From [Value 063]. Call identified with sequence number 0310047. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Value 106]. This call was made at 12:10:25 hours on November 2, 2018. Subject of interest called another subject and said – that car is still there, you should see how they stared me down, stared me down. Subject answered – oh yeah? A third subject is heard saying – two guys, huh? Second subject asked subject of interest – is it two guys? Subject of interest answered – yes, two guys are still there, they haven't moved but they stared me down hard and didn't take their eyes off me until they couldn't see the car anymore. I'm going to check, I'm going to see if anyone is following me. A third subject is heard saying – (says something unintelligible) bringing food, call the cops on them to see who they are, call 911. Second subject said to subject of interest – man, have someone call 911 from a prepaid phone and tell them, you know, the cops. A third subject was heard saying – let's see what they do. Second subject said to subject of interest – let's see what they do, what they tell them. Subject of interest said: anyway, I'm going to circle around to see if they moved after I passed. Second subject said – but pay attention to me, call them and you tell them that you live across the street and that there is a gray car with such and such plates and that it's very suspicious, make up a name and say they have two briefcases there” (Emphasis supplied. Cf. page 347 of the judgment). From the conversation, it can be inferred that the defendants detected a vehicle they deemed suspicious and therefore considered calling the emergency number 911 to generate an alert about it, which constitutes a task typical of what is known in police jargon as counter-surveillance, corresponding to the search for and detection of any risk situation, such as a police presence. A significant number of sections of the judgment reflect that the defendants organized to transport [Name 001], through an entirely established logistics operation, which involved some of them traveling on the road along the route the subject was to take, to warn about traffic conditions, but above all about police presence. [Name 029], [Name 007], the brothers [Name 004] and [Name 022] were all identified in tasks of this nature, whose participation in material activities characteristic of drug trafficking was duly accredited. This was extensively alluded to when hearing the appeals filed on behalf of those defendants, to which reference is made. To illustrate these movements on public roads, some of the communications that the lower court (a quo) recorded in the judgment are cited: “From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0305849. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 088]. This call was made at 12:13 hours on December 14, 2018.\n\n[Nombre 010] called [Nombre 109], who told him – hey, [Nombre 010] said what?, [Nombre 109] said – well I don't know what they would answer me, says [Nombre 083], [Nombre 010] said – Where are they?, [Nombre 109] said – here we're going along [Nombre 313], [Nombre 010] said – well yeah, so nothing's visible?, [Nombre 109] said – no, all clear, [Nombre 010] said – okay, here we go, (mentions something unintelligible), [Nombre 001] said on the other phone – yeah, I'm already on my way, I'm going to check the car, [Nombre 109] said – which way are you coming?, [Nombre 010] said – along the line, (mentions something but it's unintelligible), [Nombre 109] said – man, [Nombre 010] said – mmm, What?, [Nombre 109] said – which way are you guys coming?, [Nombre 010] said – hello, [Nombre 109] said – all, all, all clear here at the power; [Nombre 010] said – okay here we go along, [Nombre 001] said on the other phone (can't understand) I'm always in the car, [Nombre 010] said – we're about to come out onto the Palí main road, [Nombre 109] said – (mentions something unintelligible) the Palí main road, all clear at the Pubi, all clear at the Pubi, Gara, there's Villa man, [Nombre 010] said – oof, let's go, [Nombre 109] said – all clear Gara, [Nombre 010] said – okay here we go, Palí, [Nombre 109] said – which way are you coming?, Palí, [Nombre 010] said – aha, [Nombre 109] said – Palí, all clear at the Leña, [Nombre 010] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 109] said – she's hot man, nice to touch her ass man, [Nombre 010] said – everything okay?, [Nombre 109] said – all clear, here we go like by the leña, [Nombre 010] said – uh-huh uh-huh, tell us, [Nombre 109] said – which way are you coming?, which way are you coming, [Nombre 010] said – here we are in Panal, [Nombre 109] said – is there a traffic jam?, [Nombre 010] said – yes, [Nombre 109] said – there's a traffic jam?, [Nombre 010] said – there's a huge fucking one here, [Nombre 001] spoke on the other phone however you can't understand what they're saying, [Nombre 010] said – pass me to Tobes, [Nombre 083] said – hello, [Nombre 010] said – man, hasn't anything happened?, [Nombre 083] said – no, [Nombre 010] said – because well, there goes one flying with its parking lights on, with the sirens, flying downwards, [Nombre 083] said – no, nothing's happened here, [Nombre 010] said – well, there they go, so you guys are on alert, [Nombre 083] said – Where are you guys?, [Nombre 010] said – we're already here stuck at the traffic light, there they go, [Nombre 083] said – a patrol car, [Nombre 010] said – yeah, one, [Nombre 083] said – there they come, there they come, there they come, [Nombre 010] said to [Nombre 001] – yeah, right, that's what I've always said, that stuff is a setback, [Nombre 001] said on the other phone – some lot, [Nombre 010] said – there goes another one, [Nombre 083] said – another one?, [Nombre 010] said yes, [Nombre 083] said – they turned in towards the school, [Nombre 010] said – they took off to the school, [Nombre 083] said – which way are you guys coming?, [Nombre 010] said – well, here we go where I told you man, [Nombre 001] said on the other phone – idiot, there's an entrance to the Red Cross there, [Nombre 083] said – here comes another one, [Nombre 001] said on the other phone – there's a traffic jam, [Nombre 010] said – yeah, yeah, there it goes, [Nombre 083] said – I'm going to go in by the school to see what that thing is, [Nombre 010] said – do it, come over because, you dummy, we need you man, here we go, here we go man, just as long as Gara is all good, that's all, where is he?, [Nombre 083] said – which way are you coming?, [Nombre 010] said – here along the Lico, [Nombre 109] said – they're coming along the Lico, who knows what happened at the school because he took off flying, [Nombre 010] said uh-huh uh-huh here we go, sometimes it's a show what they do, [Nombre 109] said – you should have seen how he turned here at the school entrance, he almost flipped rasta, [Nombre 010] said – here we go, here we go, Where are they?, [Nombre 109] said – we're here around [Nombre 061], which way are you coming?, [Nombre 010]\n\n... said - here by the Gena, [Name 109] said - ah, [Name 010] said - by the gene, [Name 109] said - by [Name 166], (subject off-phone said something unintelligible) [Name 109] said - we're turning at Gara, [Name 010] said - here we go now, we're going straight, [Name 109] said - they went straight, [Name 010] said - [Name 010] said - yes, [Name 109] said - they're coming from below, [Name 010] said - huh?, [Name 109] said - they're coming from the lower side, we're here at Gara, [Name 010] said - look there, and we're going straight, [Name 109] said - I'm still here, we're still here, [Name 010] said - no no, stay there, everything's fine there, [Name 109] said - should we keep going straight?, [Name 010] said - yes, we're here, we're doing fine, all clear, [Name 109] said - let's keep going straight, [Name 109] said - we're going down, [Name 010] said - yes.\n\n«Ends conversation» [sic] (cf. fs. 623 to 624 of the judgment). The preceding communication is a faithful reflection of those dynamics developed by the accused, since while [Nombre 001] —who was not one of the interlocutors, but was recorded outside the telephone— was traveling in the vehicle in which [Nombre 010] was also traveling, another of the defendants, in this case [Nombre 007], was informing them about the state of the route. It is further confirmed that the objective of the subjects was to know the location of police authority personnel and thus be able to evade them. Moreover, the evidence also reveals that part of the purposes pursued with this way of acting was to avoid the identification of the vehicles in which they were moving. This is evident from the following communication: «From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0040994. The intervened telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 13:31 hours on May 11, 2019. [Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 083], [Nombre 124] said – here I come, arriving at the line, [Nombre 083] said – well then, do I park at the Gara entrance?, [Nombre 124] said – do I park at Gara's?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 083] said – and are they going to enter where you guys are there at the Las Tenis entrance?, [Nombre 124] said – which way am I going to enter?, [Nombre 083] said – ha?, [Nombre 124] said – which way am I going to enter?, [Nombre 083] said – that's what I mean, which way are you going to enter?, [Nombre 124] said – well yes, why?, [Nombre 083] said – no, that's why I'm asking you because, well, like, because of that guy who doesn't want the cops to see the car and, well, as it's parked there, [Nombre 124] said – is there one there where Chili is?, [Nombre 083] said – man, right across from the one, man, where [Nombre 065]'s entrance is, man, right across from the one, the cop is right there looking out, [Nombre 124] said – aha where, there by where Chili is, just a little bit outside, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – on the alameda or before?, [Nombre 083] said – on the alameda man, on the alameda, looking towards where?, [Nombre 083] said – towards las tenis, the cop is there, like tucked into the alameda man, she's with some guys from, [Nombre 124] said – with some guys from what?, from cable?, [Nombre 083] said – from cable, yes, and around the turn down below is the other one and inside the place there are some cops, where Los Rigos are, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – man, but if they are with the cable guys, they are with the cable guys, [Nombre 124] said – yes, if they are with the cable guys, they are with the cable guys, [Nombre 083] said – no, that's why, I'm telling you so you know the cop is there, I mean she's parked there, [Nombre 124] said – well yes, I know you're telling me the cop is there but if they're with the cable guys, they're on another system, anything happens you stick your tongue out at them, you flip them off already, [Nombre 083] said – yes, you cocksucker, [Nombre 124] said – you flip them off, [Nombre 083] said – and if you come entering on that guy, afterwards don't say anything, you dick-sucker, I'm going to the Gara entrance then, [Nombre 124] said – I'm here, Panal, I'm going now, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – which way is the son of a bitch looking, towards the street or towards the alameda?, [Nombre 124] said – towards the street, [Nombre 083] said – towards the street man. Towards the front of the one man, I don't know why you don't explain well man, [Nombre 124] said – I mean, [Nombre 083] said – towards the front of the one, [Nombre 124] said – looking sort of towards the front of the one, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – are they down below or what?, [Nombre 124] said – are they crouched down or what?, [Nombre 083] said – no, the guys are sitting in the car, [Nombre 124] said – sitting in the car, [Nombre 083] said – in a milk box one, it is, [Nombre 124] said – no, but if they are with the cable thing, it's with the cable thing, dumbass, [Nombre 083] said – there are two cars there, [Nombre 124] said – well, well, I'm on my way man, [Nombre 166], [Nombre 083] said – well man, those son-of-a-bitch cars don't move man, [Nombre 124] said – you come like a relaxed [Nombre 315], he's coming behind, get going, step on it, I'm going to go a little bit slowly here, get going, a second subject off-phone said to [Nombre 001] – all the law is there, buddy, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – how many?, they only told me they were patrol cars, the subject off-phone said – a pile, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – just a pile?, the subject off-phone said – I'll cover you, you go in and I'll cover you, [Nombre 083] said – the pile is down below, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – get in behind me, that's all, [Nombre 124] said – careful, fag, ha, they're there, those guys say at the one, dumbass, ah, they're calm and relaxed, dumbass, calm down (they talk about matters of no interest). Communication ends» (Emphasis supplied. Cf. f. 524 of the judgment).\n\nFrom the previous communication, in which [Name 029], alias «[Name 083]», and ([Name 013]), alias «[Name 124]», interact, another relevant aspect stands out, specifically the use of the term «ese mae» by the defendants to avoid openly alluding to the identity of [Name 001] in their communications; however, it is inferred that they are referring to that subject because he was traveling in the vehicle, since his voice was recorded in the recording. The judgment also refers to the use of that term as a protection mechanism aimed at avoiding revealing the identity of [Name 001], as part of the precautions adopted for his protection, without noting any error in the conclusion of the court of first instance (a quo), since there is abundant evidence in that regard. As part of the communications recorded in the judgment, from which it is inferred that the investigated individuals were referring to [Name 001] as «ese mae», sequence 0318381 generated on December 3, 2018, the date on which administrative police authorities apprehended him, is verified: «[Name 010] spoke with a female; from said conversation the following information of interest was obtained […] [Name 010] said – deay they just took away ese mae […]». From this event, it is also notable that [Name 161], alias «[Name 083]», informed the mother of [Name 001] of what happened and she scolded him because they did not take care of him, which also shows that the dynamics existing among the defendants were even known to the defendant's close circle: «From [Value 099]. Call identified with sequence number 0323443. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of an unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 9:04 p.m. on December 3, 2018.\" [Name 168] called [Name 083] and said - have they been released yet?, [Name 083] said – no, we are here waiting outside, they are checking the car superficially, [Name 168] said - but didn't, didn't they catch them with their hands?, [Name 083] said – no no no no no, everything, we were already coming inside, normal as always, [Name 168] said - were you, where were you?, [Name 083] said – here in the neighborhood, [Name 168] said – my god, wasn't there anyone there?. [Name 083] said – no, but no everything's fine everything's fine we're leaving now, it doesn't matter, it's routine the cop said, [Name 168] said - how how does he know, how does he know?, [Name 083] said - huh?, [Name 168] said - how does he know if they are going to release him?, [Name 083] said – no because they are already checking there and that's normal Mrs. [Name 168], we aren't carrying anything or anything, we never carry anything, [Name 168] said – but how strange why wasn't there anyone there keeping watch?, [Name 083] said – deay Mrs. [Name 168] I was coming with him and…, [Name 168] said – (unintelligible) that he cannot pass, [Name 083] said – I was coming with him from up there see and I asked and I asked and nobody told me anything and when we entered we did run into some motorcycles on one side so we went another way and there was a whole bunch more, [Name 168] said – and wasn't there anyone in the neighborhood? I hope no one (unintelligible) here, [Name 083] said – no, [Name 168] said – if there's no one here no one can enter, it was only you, [Name 083] said – only [Name 109] standing on the corner, that's what I'm going to talk to him about, [Name 168] said and he didn't say anything (unintelligible)?, [Name 083] said – that's what I'm going to talk to him about now because legally, like, I'm going to tell him look you I know you're going to scold me but I can't come with you from up there and have eyes down below too, I need you to put someone there to help me, [Name 168] said – and he has eyes only for watching the phone, uy I hope it's nothing my god, [Name 083] said – I'll let you know Mrs. [Name 168]; they say goodbye. Communication ends» (cf. pages 365 to 366 of the judgment). The communication also reveals that [Name 001], for his own protection, did not travel with anything that could compromise him, which is corroborated when [Name 161], alias [Name 083], indicates that they never carried anything.\n\nAnd it was known that [Name 001] was a person of interest to the authorities due to the criminal activity he carried out, as reflected in sequence 0255028, from line [Value 097], generated at 20:46 hours on that same day: «[Name 001] called a subject and told him – man, the subject told him – good evening young man, how are you?, [Name 001] said – man, don't cut me off, don't cut me off, don't cut me off, the subject said – ok, [Name 001] said – they are taking me out with an escort from the León to the delegation but I don't know which delegation because supposedly the regional director wants to talk to me, they are going to take me out I don't know why here don't cut me off because I'm going to keep it monitored wherever they take me, the subject said – ok, but who is taking you?, [Name 001] said – the GAO, the police, I'm going alone in my car, they are on motorcycles behind me, the subject said – ok, is there anything that compromises you?, [Name 001] said – absolutely nothing man, I'm clean, the subject said – which delegation?, [Name 001] said – I don't know, here I am following them, surely they are taking me to Tibás or I don't know where, they are telling me to leave, the subject said – but are you going with one of them?, [Name 001] said – no, I'm going alone in my car, they already searched my whole car, the subject said – ok, and where is the delegation?, [Name 001] said – in Tibás by the Saprisa stadium and there's one by the Mas x Menos in Tibás, the subject said – but you don't know which one?, [Name 001] said – I don't know which one because they're taking me, I don't know which one I'm going to, the subject said – ok but you are not going as, [Name 001] said – I'm going in a caravan, I have about ten motorcycles, about five are behind me and five in front, the subject said – ok but you aren't going as a detainee, [Name 001] said – no, no, I'm driving my car, they already checked my license and a policeman who checked me said everything is all good but I don't know you know they are probably going to set the dogs on me and all that stuff, the subject said – no, no, no, we agree but is there nothing that compromises you?, [Name 001] said – absolutely man, the subject said – ok go because you are not right now as a detainee, if you had some kind of warrant and referral, well you would immediately be handcuffed and they would be taking you in a paddy wagon, ok?, so let's see what the man intends to talk to you about, see because that kind of transfer is not common, see, a third subject outside the phone said – or tell him if he needs a lawyer to see what we come up with, the second subject said – see, now, if you need some lawyer to show up or something, now let's see, [Name 001] said – look, I'm going to talk because I'm in my car, the second subject said – correct, [Name 001] said – but they are going to take my phone away from me right now as soon as we arrive, wherever they take me, I don't know where they are taking me, the second subject said – obvious, [Name 001] said – look the other time they transferred me like that when I was in a place in Belén and they took me and searched my car and all that nonsense because that's just how it is and that's it […]» [sic] (cf. pages 370 to 372 of the judgment). The trial court (a quo) also established that on December 8, 2019, the defendants [Name 001], [Name 030], and [Name 022], were subjected to an unlawful act while they were at the Monge store, located in the vicinity of the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales. On that occasion, armed individuals entered the premises looking for the defendants, at whom they directed gunfire, which only managed to hit [Name 022] in one of his legs. The judicial police classified this event as \"an attack (atentado)\", a term used for clashes between rival gangs dedicated to illegal activities. After what happened, [Name 001] left the site before the authorities arrived; for their part, the other two defendants, when approached by the Organismo de Investigación Judicial, concealed that [Name 001] was present at the site, which was finally confirmed by reviewing the store's security cameras. It is therefore evident that they attempted to erase any trace of him linking him to the attack that occurred (cf. pages 760 to 766 of the judgment). The information presented and extracted from the trial court's judgment clearly reflects the subordination of the other accused individuals to [Name 001], and how a series of dynamics characteristic of a criminal organization orbited around him, in which the leader orders and directs, but is also protected so he can continue in those functions. Other communications contained in the judgment that reflect the submission to the instructions of [Name 001] are the following: «From [Value 098]. A call identified with sequence number 0318469. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 088]. This call was made at 04:17 hours on December 4, 2018. [Name 109] called [Name 010] and told him – where are you?, [Name 010] said – here with [Name 083] we're heading down now, [Name 109] said – well look that dude told me that I had to stay with you there, [Name 010] said – who, [Name 083]?, [Name 109] said – no, [Name 136], [Name 010] said – oh yes yes, [Name 109] said – but well no, if you want go over to [Name 124]'s place, I'm going to stay outside there for a while, at least until five-thirty, [Name 010] said – no no no we stay outside man, I'm already at the corner man, [Name 109] said – well I'm shitting, I'll be right out, [Name 010] said – put it on hijueputa. Call ends» (Emphasis added. Cf. page 491). In that conversation, [Name 007], alias \"[Name 109]\", refers to [Name 001] by the alias \"[Name 136]\", which was known from the criminal information report (noticia criminal). «From [Value 100]. A call identified with sequence number 0337010. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone line [Value 094]. This call was made at 20:42 hours on February 4, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 109] called [Nombre 124], [Nombre 124] said – hello, [Nombre 109] said – hello, [Nombre 124], [Nombre 124] said – hello, [Nombre 109] said – hello, [Nombre 124] said – go ahead, [Nombre 109] said – dude, where are you?, [Nombre 124] said – inside, why? do you need something?, [Nombre 109] said – dude, ask that guy if I can come over for a bit, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 109] said – ask him, ask him so we can go right away, [Nombre 109] said – (mentions something unintelligible) maybe you bastard, [Nombre 109] said – ah, but ask him dude so that just to see if he says go or not dude because maybe he says no or something like that because I have to be here, [Nombre 124] said – just ask, you idiot, come on, [Nombre 109] said – ah, [Nombre 124] said – come on, come on, ask, [Nombre 109] said – no dude, because later he tells me not to, that I should have stayed there, and he'll chew me out, tell him dude, [Nombre 124] said – what a pain, then screw it, they continue talking without interest. The communication ends\" (Emphasis supplied. Cf. f. 498 of the judgment). In the preceding record, [Nombre 007], alias \"[Nombre 109]\", talks with ([Nombre 013]), alias \"[Nombre 124]\", whom he asks to request permission from [Nombre 001], alluded to as \"that guy (ese mae)\", to visit him and to be able to move from the site where he was. Another communication that exemplifies compliance with instructions from [Nombre 001] is the following: \"From [Valor 100]. Call identified with sequence number 0337500. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone line [Valor 174]. This call was made at 15:59 hours on the day of February 5, 2019. [Nombre 109] spoke with a subject identified as [Nombre 316], the same being held in La Reforma prison, from said call the following information of interest was obtained. •From minute 00:02:50 to minute 00:03:12. [Nombre 316] said – what's up dude, when are you coming to see me, you bastard dude, send [Nombre 065] dude, [Nombre 109] said – dude I don't know [Nombre 316] it's just that right now I'm on a thing here dude that I can't leave alone dude, that guy (ese mae) has me watching a thing dude, [Nombre 316] said – no no, it's all good, I understand you, you know man, I understand you daddy, [Nombre 109] said – and I can't neglect it but no no, you know, anytime, jerk\" (Emphasis supplied. Cf. f. 634). Telephone contacts in this sense were extensively documented in the judgment, clearly reflecting the leadership position exercised by [Nombre 001], whom the other defendants followed without question and from whom they sought authorization before making certain movements. On the other hand, the judgment also collected other communications from which it is possible to infer subordination to [Nombre 001] in tasks that are typical of criminal activity. The a quo, based on the evidence presented at trial, correctly established that [Nombre 029] was the person in charge of transporting and supplying drugs to other criminal organizations, among them those investigated in summaries 18-000017-1219-PE, case \"Bueno\", and 19-014179-0042-PE, case \"Cementerio\". As a result of the telephone interception, it was possible to establish that the form of coded language that said subject and the other accused used to refer to cocaine-type drugs was \"babies (bebés)\" or \"babys\". In light of that information, a communication such as the one recorded under sequence number 0205183, at 21:54 hours on the day of November 11, 2019, constitutes a clear and unequivocal indication that the supply of that prohibited material to third parties was carried out under the instruction of [Nombre 001]: \"[Nombre 161] alias '[Nombre 083]' received a call from [Nombre 007] alias '[Nombre 109]', user of telephone line [Valor 088]. [Nombre 225] said -hello, [Nombre 007] said -'[Nombre 083]', [Nombre 225] said -yes, [Nombre 007] said -dude, [Nombre 187] came here, [Nombre 099]'s nephew, for a baby (bebé), ask that guy to see, [Nombre 225] said -who is it, [Nombre 007] said -[Nombre 187] [Nombre 099]'s nephew, that [Nombre 099] sent him for a baby (bebé), [Nombre 225] said -well, tell him not yet, that I'll let him know right now, that guy (ese mae) isn't here, [Nombre 007] said -but he told me something like that, [Nombre 225] said -but no dude, that guy (ese mae) isn't here, and he hasn't told me anything, you jerk, I'm not going to give anything to anyone, anyway I think there isn't anything yet right now, tell him that I'll let him know, [Nombre 007] said -dude, but that guy has one stored from [Nombre 099] dude, that needs to be given to him, [Nombre 225] said -but until that guy (ese mae) comes, I'm not giving a damn thing if that guy doesn't tell me dude, [Nombre 007] said -but can't you ask him, don't you have his PIN, [Nombre 225] said -he's busy right now dude, tell him we'll look for him right now, when that guy (ese mae) comes\" [sic] (Emphasis supplied. Cf. f.645 of the judgment). In that communication, it is verified that [Nombre 007] asks [Nombre 161] for drugs to give to a third party, and he indicates that he cannot perform such an action without having the authorization of [Nombre 001], to whom, as was customary for those under investigation, he referred to as \"that guy (ese mae)\", which allows the direction of said subject in the criminal activity to be verified.\n\nAnother moment in which the accused's hierarchy is reflected occurred when [Name 015] asked his son [Name 022], alias \"[Name 123],\" to talk with [Name 001] to arrange protection for his residence, given that in that location there was \"galeta,\" which is a term used in the jargon of people dedicated to drug trafficking to refer to places where they store the illicit material. It is important to highlight that this circumstance was fully established in the judgment, in which the residence of those defendants was indicated as a storage site for the organization's supplies, among these, drugs. The communication of interest is the following: \"From [Value 087]. Call identified with sequence number 0360925. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 103].\n\nThis call was made at 17:09 hours on June 13, 2019. [Name 022] alias “[Name 123]” spoke with “[Name 125]”, [Name 125] told him – [Name 022], [Name 123] told him – that, [Name 125] told him – papi you know I already investigated how the thing was with those men, [Name 123] told him with whom, [Name 125] told him with the ones who threw themselves on the roof, [Name 123] told him – I don’t know what the deal is, [Name 125] told him – it was lapicito and a little dude who also lives right around there, [Name 123] told him – who, [Name 125] told him – it was [Name 257], [Name 257] the thing was he came and told [Name 159] to calm down, to calm down but he was going to kill her dog, because [Name 159] was the one who told me “look [Name 015] it was people from [Name 153]” she tells me, from [Name 153] I don’t believe it I said, [Name 123] told him – uh-huh, [Name 125] told him – and she told me yes it was lapicito and a little dude on a red motorcycle she tells me but the other one [Name 181] I don’t know who he is but she says yes he hangs around a lot with [Name 010] that [Name 181], [Name 123] told him – and what was the deal, [Name 125] told him – and the thing is that the one who let them throw themselves in there because they had the law behind them was [Name 012] the one from tarzan this [Name 012] the one from behind where we are and that was the same day there was the problem and that was at five in the afternoon, that was when the shots started being heard up here, [Name 123] told him – uh-huh, uh-huh, [Name 125] told him – you remember they started shooting and whatnot and so then Mrs. [Name 074] says that no, that they wrecked her place, that they caved in her roof, and [Name 159] says that yes, that she saw them and that the guy came and that where he was going to kill the dog so it wouldn't bite her she says hey what, and that he tells her calm down ma'am eat quietly ma'am because I work for [Name 153] and that, and what are you going to do, and so then she tells him no papi you were running your mouth, you aren't with that guy, you think one is an idiot, so these people say everyone is bewitched, what they tell me is that why don't I go and show my face and why don't I talk to that guy so he can tell this guy, [Name 123] told him – don’t you get involved in anything, [Name 125] told him – listen I don't you know what the thing is, in a way I would talk but it's for us, for my house because I'm going to tell you something, just like, [Name 123] told him – but wait I already talked, I already told him, I already talked with him, I didn't know who the characters were but I already talked and he already gave me the green light that's it, [Name 125] told him – well, okay so green light now what you have to tell him, tell him it was lapicito and that lapicito used his name, that's why the old man came here angry to tell me that when someone uses that man's name, [Name 123] told him – mami dude stop going around saying I should tell things to him, no way, just leave it now I'm going to tell him look man I was told that well yes, and I got heated there at the house and all that, and next time give a heads-up, that's the only thing I'm going to tell him, [Name 125] told him – and another thing, and another what, [Name 123] told him – another what, [Name 125] told him – what was it he told me that and whatnot, [Name 123] told him – that I'm going to fuck that guy [Name 257] over and I'm going to say next time give a heads-up because I was heated about the house and then I say, I say if some son of a bitch comes in here I'll put a bullet in him, next time give a heads-up, [Name 125] told him – no give a heads-up no is that you can't be doing that because that's when the poor old lady got an attack and almost died, [Name 123] told him – yes, yes but you stop getting involved in things, if someone has to be told something it should be those people, [Name 125] told him – no, no the only thing I say is, I, my entrance has to be looked after and if my entrance which is out back no one is going to look after it for me then they better just screw me, because I'm going to tell you one thing darling I, if I don't look after my own ass no one looks after it for me, if we don't look after ourselves no one looks after us just like this piece of a son of a bitch and the other son of a bitch too they lend themselves to that shit like that they just come in to rob us because they're lent out because as they know there's cash here that they lend themselves and that they just come in while one sleeps only because back there there isn't a secure, [Name 123] told him – mami but if you're going to talk to me speak properly stop talking nonsense on the phone, [Name 125] told him – I'm not saying anything serious, nothing serious I'm saying, [Name 123] told him – nothing serious, look stop talking nonsense or don't even call me I already just talked that's it mami now, stay quiet, don't be stubborn, I already talked, [Name 125] told him – so look I'm also going to have to go talk the truth and that's better yes, [Name 123] told him – why do you have to come talk, [Name 125] told him – no so legally since you talked and don't give a damn I'm going to have to go, [Name 123] told him – that he doesn't give a damn I already talked I already told him and he already gave me the green light that's it, [Name 125] told him – yes green light, according to you he's going to break that great gentleman who is a papi to him, oh please [Name 022] that amazes me, it amazes me to know that according to you you believe that guy knowing it was this guy and that it was another character from his own, you know he's not going to do anything to them on the contrary they are welcome, [Name 123] told him – mami if you're going to call me call me and get serious stop talking nonsense, [Name 125] told him – okay, okay- Communication ends” [sic] (cf. pages 541 to 544 of the judgment).\n\nThe dialogue transcribed above reaffirms the hierarchy of [Nombre 001] and the fact that he had the last word in any type of disagreement that arose within the organization and even among the neighbors of the neighborhood where they had storage houses. Proof of this is that [Nombre 015] —known as «[Nombre 125]»— told her son that she was going to have to talk to «ese mae» so that he would know that two subjects were using his name «[Nombre 153]» to engage in improper attitudes with the local inhabitants. The foregoing is only part of the abundant evidentiary record set forth in the judgment by the a quo, which demonstrates the reasons why it opted to establish the criminal liability of [Nombre 001] in the activity of drug trafficking. Evidently, that determination was deduced from the examination of circumstantial evidence, an exercise that is valid and which, in the context of the criminal organization under investigation, was the only way to link him, given that, due to the precautions he maintained to leave no trace of the criminal activity, it was not possible to collect direct evidence against him. In the case of criminal organizations, in which the leadership generates a certain distancing from the material activities that consummate the crime, precisely to leave no trace of their participation, requiring direct evidence would imply generating impunity for those who deserve the greatest reproach. The foregoing in no way implies relaxing or reducing the standards for evaluating evidence, but rather adapting them to the specific criminal phenomenon, as occurred in this case, in which the liability of [Nombre 001] was deduced from a multiplicity of information, including the evaluation of his daily life and the way in which the other defendants became involved in it. Contrary to what was stated by the defense, this Chamber does not observe peripheral information that is beneficial to him and that has not been considered, but rather, on the contrary, all the dynamics analyzed pointed to the centrality of the accused in relation to the other defendants. Nor are there any contradictions or internal coherence problems in the construction of the reasoning that supports the accreditation of the defendant's criminal liability. The entire judgment was built on the premises indicated at the beginning of this considerando, namely: «(i) a criminal organization has an administrative structure equal or similar to one that executes lawful activities; (ii) circumstantial evidence is the ideal means to weigh the evidentiary material gathered during this adversarial proceeding; (iii) it is unnecessary for the leaders of a criminal clan to be the material executors of the criminal acts, if it is clear from the evidence that they knew of and authorized them; and (iv) the absence of direct evidence, by itself, does not delegitimize the state's punitive claim. It is under these premises that the evidentiary material subjected to the adversarial proceeding shall be evaluated». In the opinion of this Chamber, that logic followed in the judgment is consistent with the criminal phenomenon tried and explains why the lack of direct evidence or the direct attribution of some specific criminal act that the defense misses, are not an obstacle to determining the criminal liability of the defendant for the acts charged. The judgment is a logical-legal unit that cannot be analyzed in a fragmented manner. Said document, evaluated jointly, allows establishing that the criminal participation of [Nombre 001], in the leadership position in which he was placed, is fully established, without admitting any margin of doubt in his favor. On the other hand, the defense considers that the transfer of the accusation to the judge of the intermediate stage constitutes an absolute defect, without notifying their client about the related cases 18-000017-1219-PE, case «Bueno»; 19-014179-0042-PE, case «Cementerio» and 19-000160-0622-PE, case «[Nombre 269]». However, after examining the case file, this Chamber concludes that it is not correct. Regarding this aspect, the first thing that must be pointed out is that procedural forms are not an end in themselves, but rather are directed at protecting the fundamental rights of the parties. By virtue of the foregoing, a declaration of nullity should only occur when an effective and verifiable impact on the sphere of rights of any of the participants in the process has been generated; otherwise, it would become a nullity for nullity's sake. In the case before us, the injury to the right of defense claimed by the appellant is not verified. The study of the case file has allowed establishing that the linkage of the present summary proceeding with cases 18-000017-1219-PE, 19-014179-0042-PE and 19-000160-0622-PE —and others to which the defense has not made reference— was fully documented prior to the accused persons, including [Nombre 001], being arrested and giving their statement before the Public Prosecutor's Office. The nexus with summary proceeding 18-000017-1219-PE began to take shape from the early stages of the investigation, as the first reference to it is located in report IP-033-EN-19, dated January 25, 2019 (cf. p. 185 of the investigation file). Later, in reports IP-128-EN-19, dated April 17, 2019; IP-227-EN-19, dated July 15, 2019; IP-094-EN-20, dated April 16, 2020 and IP-138-EN-20, dated May 21, 2020, the link between both matters is ratified (cf. pp. 258, 263, 326, 349, 556, 1385, 1637 of the investigation file). In these documents, it was already identified that the structure investigated in this summary proceeding supplied drugs to the one led by alias «[Nombre 355]», who is none other than [Nombre 137]. Furthermore, the use of the term «babys», as a form of coded language to refer to cocaine-type drugs, had also already been identified, as well as the role of [Nombre 029] as a transporter of the shipments. The intervention of a woman named [Nombre 101], alias «[Nombre 051]», as one of the contacts of ([Nombre 004]) with the organization of alias «Enano», was also documented. Regarding summary proceeding 19-017179-0042-PE «Caso Aserrí», it is verified that in report IP-227-EN-19, dated July 15, 2019, in the section «Cuarto», a broad breakdown was made of the investigation proceedings carried out by the judicial police as a result of the connection with this case, starting with the surveillances and follow-ups carried out on [Nombre 029] in the first half of May 2019, which led to a follow-up being conducted on the 16th of that same month from Ciudadela León XIII to the Aserrí sector, which culminated in a significant drug seizure —2525 doses of cocaine from a subject identified as [Nombre 105] and more than 2 kilograms of cocaine, as a result of the search conducted at the dwelling with which he had contact—. It is also important to highlight that at the time that report was prepared, a clearly established police hypothesis already existed, according to which the organization investigated in this case, led by [Nombre 001], who was known by his aliases «[Nombre 084]» or «[Nombre 136]», was in charge of supplying drugs, which they referred to as «bebés», to the criminal organizations prosecuted under summary proceedings 18-000017-1219-PE and 19-0171790042-PE, through a similar dynamic, namely through [Nombre 029], who made the deliveries in the Mitsubishi vehicle, license plate [Valor 068] and around midnight (cf. p. 556 of the investigation file). Something similar occurs with the investigation directed against [Nombre 268], alias «[Nombre 269]» which corresponds to criminal summary proceeding 19-000160-0622-PE. Said subject was mentioned, repeatedly, from the initial stages of the investigation as a person linked to [Nombre 001]. In that sense, police report IP-227-EN-19, dated July 15, 2019, refers to it, in which alias «[Nombre 269]» was identified as a subordinate of [Nombre 001] and a possible drug seller (cf. pp. 407, 408, 409 of the investigation file). In police report IP-383-EN-19, dated November 15, 2019, it was already announced that searches had been carried out at different drug sale points related to alias «[Nombre 269]», which took place on November 6, 2019 (cf. p. 727 of the investigation file), which was addressed in detail in report IP-359-EN-19, in the third section, where the investigation proceedings carried out were explained, through which both summary proceedings were connected by the police (cf. pp. 949 to 967 of the investigation file). Finally, it must be indicated that in report IP-138-EN-20, dated May 21, 2020, in the third section, all the cases with which this matter was linked by the police were detailed, among them those that the defense misses, addressed under the titles «3.1 Sumaria 18-000017-1219-PE, Caso “El Bueno”, Infracción Ley de Psicotrópicos», «3.3 Sumaria 19-014179-0042-PE, Caso “Cementerio”, Infracción Ley de Psicotrópicos», «3.4 Sumaria 19-000160-0622-PE. Caso “Varela”, Infracción Ley de Psicotrópicos» (cf. pp. 1706 to 1747 of the investigation file). All this information was added to the case file prior to the arrest of the accused persons being carried out, that is, it formed part of the evidentiary record brought to their attention at the moment they were formally charged by the Public Prosecutor's Office after their arrest. From the foregoing, it follows then that it is not true what was stated by the defense counsel, in the sense that the accused learned of the connection with those summary proceedings until months after his arrest, when the certified copies of the files were added, because the truth is that the link was fully documented in the reports prepared by the judicial police, so a review of the case file was sufficient to become aware of that information. It is also claimed that at the time [Nombre 001] gave his investigatory statement, only mention was made of two of the aforementioned summary proceedings, specifically 18-000017-1219-PE and 19-014179-0042-PE. This Chamber observes that on that occasion, the following was detailed: «[...] Finally, the rights that assist him are listed, as regulated in articles 82 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which consist of being the leader of a criminal organization dedicated to trafficking in narcotics and money laundering based in the Ciudadela León XIII, for which there are two events described in the police reports referring to case 18-000017-1219-PE and case 19-014179-0042-PE. Regarding the crime of money laundering, the acts attributed to him are described in police report 25-SLC- C1-20, from the Money Laundering Section» (cf. pp. 2300 to 2301 of the main file). We see then that the formal charging of the accused was clear insofar as he was identified as the leader of a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking and money laundering. Although it is true that on that occasion only two summary proceedings were alluded to as those related to the present one, that does not imply that the subsequent inclusion of others in the accusation entailed the need for a new formal charge, since they did not constitute a new crime, but rather were part of the evidentiary support for the same criminal phenomenon that was initially reported to him, namely drug trafficking and his role as leader. In any case, as indicated supra, the police reports already had a link registered with various summary proceedings, not only the two that were recorded in the record of the investigatory statement. Under this approach, the incorporation of the certified copy of those summary proceedings constitutes only additional evidence, which ratifies the information already contained in the case file. It is not the duty of the Public Prosecutor's Office to document the transfer given to the parties regarding each new piece of evidence added to the file, much less in organized crime cases where the evidence is abundant. A claim of this nature is totally impractical and would generate undue delays. Procedural regulations only impose an obligation of that nature regarding expert reports, when their execution has not been previously notified, as provided for in numeral 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the rest of the evidence, the general rule is that the inclusion of the data corresponding to the case file (reports, minutes, certified copies or any other type of documentation), to which the parties have access, is sufficient for them to become aware of its existence and content. The review of the case file allows establishing that the certified copies of summary proceedings 18-000017-1219-PE and 19-000160-0622-PE were part of the case file since September 30, 2021 (cf., pp. 3279 and 3280), while the one corresponding to case was added on October 11, 2021 (cf. p. 3376). For its part, the prosecution's accusation was filed before the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José until December 2, 2022 (cf. p. 4025); that is, the parties had a little over a year to become aware of the content of that evidence, which constitutes sufficient time to prepare their defense, with a view to the subsequent stages of the process. In addition to the above, in the accusatory request, the digital certification of cases 18-000017-1219-PE «Caso Bueno»; 19-000160-0622-PE «Caso [Nombre 269]» and 19017179-0042-PE «Caso Aserrí» (the defense refers to this in its appeal as «Caso Cementerio») was offered in points 65, 66 and 68 of the description of the documentary evidence (cf. pp. 4005 vto and 4006 fte of the investigation file).\n\nSubsequently, with the scheduling of the preliminary hearing by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, effected by the order of 9:52 a.m. on January 20, 2023 (cf. folios 4051 verso to 4054 of the investigation file), the proceedings and the evidence gathered during the investigation were made available to the parties for their examination. Thus, the offer of that evidence for the trial stage was known to the defense at the moment it appeared before the judge of the intermediate stage. Although it is not the situation presented in this case, if it were considered that the charges filed in the investigation stage were limited or partial, the communication of the accusation and its supporting evidence would have remedied the deficiency. In this regard, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in resolution No. 2004-350, of 11:02 a.m. on April 2, 2004, which this court shares. On that occasion, it was stated: “The right to be informed of the charges (derecho a la intimación) has been defined as: ‘... the right granted to a citizen accused as the perpetrator of a crime to know in detail the facts of which he is accused, as well as the identity of the official or authority under whose jurisdiction and competence his case is being processed.’ (Ferrandino Tacsan, Álvaro and Porras Villalta, Mario, ‘La Defensa del Imputado,’ in: Reflexiones sobre el Nuevo Proceso Penal, Mundo Gráfico, San José, 1996, p. 303). The right of every accused person to receive information about the charges brought against them is an essential guarantee of due process, and its non-observance constitutes an absolute defect, as stipulated in subsection a) of Article 175 of the Código Procesal Penal. However, as this Chamber has pointed out on repeated occasions: ‘... the existence of a procedural defect, even if it constitutes an absolute nullity, should not be declared as such when there is no procedural interest in doing so (See, for example, Appeals for Annulment No. 261-F of 9:50 a.m. on December 20, 1985; No. 208-F of 9:45 a.m. on August 7, 1987; No. 330-F of 9:00 a.m. on November 9, 1990; and No. 83-F of 8:55 a.m. on March 20, 1992). Now then, this interest is lacking in those cases in which the repetition of the defective act brings no procedural advantage to the party alleging it, or to the object of the proceeding.’ (No. 984 of 10:29 a.m. on October 31, 2003). It is therefore necessary to analyze the particularities of the alleged procedural defect in the specific case, in order to determine whether prejudice has been caused. While it is observed that on January 5, 2000, at the moment of receiving the investigative statement (declaración indagatoria) of [Nombre 318], the complaint only included the conduct committed to the detriment of [Nombre 319], when [Nombre 318] was notified of the accusatory text, the claimed omission was remedied, as he was informed of the charges (intimarse) regarding the facts in which [Nombre 320], of the same surnames, appears as the aggrieved party. The current procedural system regulating the matter provides for the investigative statement as the first formal notification of charges (imputación formal) of the facts, and there is no doubt that the appropriate course is to carry it out at the start of the proceeding, so that the accused has the opportunity to participate in the production of evidence, exercise control over the investigation, and exercise their defense—both material and technical—from the early stages of the investigation. In this particular situation, however, it is necessary to analyze whether the irregularity of the belated notification of charges for the lewd acts to the detriment of [Nombre 320] prejudiced the accused, such that it warrants annulling the conviction regarding those events. In this regard, it must be emphasized that despite the noted error concerning the lack of formal notification of charges (intimación) of the facts at the initial stage, the formal notification of all charges did occur upon the transfer of the accusation (acusación), a moment at which the factual framework attributed was set forth in a precise and detailed manner, including the facts where [Nombre 320] figured as the victim, as well as its basis, applicable regulations, and the elements of conviction supporting it. With the transfer of the accusatory document, [Nombre 318] was enabled to: ‘... a) Object the request made by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) or the complainant, on formal or substantial grounds. b) Raise exceptions. c) Request the definitive or provisional dismissal, the suspension of the trial process, the imposition or revocation of a precautionary measure, or the advance presentation of evidence. d) Request the application of the abbreviated procedure, a criterion of opportunity, or conciliation. e) Offer evidence for the public oral trial, in accordance with the requirements set forth for the accusation, and f) Raise any other issue that allows for better trial preparation.’ (Article 317 of the Código Procesal Penal). At the preliminary hearing, the technical defense counsel for the accused appeared, stating that they did not object in any way to the accusation (folios 68 and 69). The appellant does not indicate at this point what prejudice the notification of some of the events at a time subsequent to the proper one caused their client. As the author Fernando Cruz Castro points out: ‘... Nullity for nullity's sake has lost its validity; respect for formalities only makes sense if they ensure the effective application of the principles governing due legal process. In each case, as the Criminal Chamber of Appeals has done, it must be evaluated whether the breach of forms has caused irremediable harm to due process. Nullity should not be the instrument of control that ensures the validity of proceduralism...’ (La nulidad por la nulidad, la justicia pronta y cumplida y la vigencia del formalismo procesal, Mundo Gráfico, San José, 1994, pp. 18-19). The purpose pursued by demanding that charges be formally communicated once the procedure has begun is to allow the defendant to exercise their full right to defense, offer evidence, and combat the accusatory theory and the elements of conviction against them. In this particular case, it is not observed how the purpose of the act would have been obstructed by its fulfillment after the opportune procedural moment, such that, as no harm was caused to the accused, the appropriate course is to dismiss the first and second grounds for annulment on procedural form.” The foregoing precedent even alludes to a more burdensome situation, because it was verified that facts constituting a new crime were not formally communicated to the accused in the investigation stage but were duly communicated to the defendant with the transfer of the accusation, prior to the holding of the preliminary hearing. With much greater reason, in the case at hand, the need for a new formal notification of charges by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) is ruled out, after incorporating the certified copies of the parallel cases, which are evidence of the same crime for which [Nombre 001] had already been informed of the charges. It is not possible to verify that a true impairment of the accused's right to defense was caused, as he was identified from the outset as the leader of an organization dedicated to drug trafficking and money laundering. It is reiterated that these certified copies do not constitute a new crime, nor do they constitute unknown evidence, since, as already explained, the connection with those other matters was documented throughout several police reports that were part of the file when the accused gave his investigative statement. This same complaint was addressed by the trial court on the occasion of a protest for defective procedural activity filed by the technical defense counsel of [Nombre 001], which was declared without merit, as was indeed appropriate. Part of the arguments discussed regarding that decision allude to the fact that the defendant did not appear as an accused in cases 18-000017-1219-PE, 19-000160-0622-PE, and 19-0171790042-PE, which was the reason it was not appropriate to take his investigative statement. Although the trial court’s reasoning is somewhat confusing, the decision it ultimately made was appropriate in light of the particularities of the case. Indeed, none of the aforementioned preliminary investigations were directed against [Nombre 001], which is the reason he did not appear as an accused in any of those files and, consequently, it was not appropriate to summon him to give an investigative statement in them. The connection to those proceedings was made based on the investigation developed in the present case, in which it was determined that the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001] supplied drugs to those other structures. Hence, at the police level, in the prosecutorial accusation, and even in the trial judgment, these preliminary investigations are referred to as “materializations,” which is nothing more than the verification of criminal activity by confirming the existence of the material object of the crime, that is, drugs for unauthorized use. Therefore, although [Nombre 001] did not appear as an accused in those matters, the information derived from them does support his status as an accused in this preliminary investigation, because it constitutes evidence for those purposes. However, the true reason why it was not appropriate to take his investigative statement regarding those preliminary investigations is because, as already indicated, they do not constitute a new crime of which the accused was not informed at the moment he was charged, but rather evidence of the same charges that had already been communicated to him. By virtue of the foregoing, the concurrence of the absolute defect alleged is not verified. Regarding the case known as “Varela,” which corresponds to preliminary investigation 19-000160-0622-PE, in which [Nombre 268], alias “[Nombre 269],” appeared as the accused, the defense questions that [Nombre 001] is not mentioned. It is true that in that preliminary investigation, there is no information that directly links [Nombre 001], as he was not one of the investigative targets; however, this does not imply that both proceedings were not linked, insofar as the trial court explained in the judgment that the connection between both matters was made based on the property used by alias “[Nombre 269]” to carry out the retail drug sale activity, which was supplied to him by [Nombre 001]: “First of all, the person with the alias ‘[Nombre 269]’ must be contextualized, along with their direct relationship as a close associate and trusted person of Mr. [Nombre 001], to the point of being a member of his criminal structure. In the following call, it can be noted how alias ‘[Nombre 269]’ is close to Mr. [Nombre 001] to such an extent that [Nombre 081], his sentimental partner, reproaches him for the fact that [Nombre 001] gave the Garabito house to ‘[Nombre 269]’: ‘From [Valor 165]. Call identified with sequence number 0264946. The intervened telephone line communicates with the user of a non-reflected telephone service. This call was made at 9:24 p.m. on May 21, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 001] spoke with [Nombre 081], at minute 03:55 [Nombre 081] said I found out that [Nombre 075] also went with his wife and children, they continued talking about topics irrelevant to the investigation until minute 21:15 when [Nombre 001] asked – and what about the house in the neighborhood, what happened, [Nombre 081] answered – I still have it because what's the problem, what's the problem, what's up, are you going to buy it from me, I'm selling it for twelve, [Nombre 001] said – with [Nombre 322]'s house, [Nombre 081] said are you going to buy it from me, [Nombre 081] said are you going to buy it from me, [Nombre 001] said – sell it, damn it, [Nombre 081] said – I wouldn't sell it even if I were crazy, not even if you bought it from me, do you want to sweet-talk me like you sweet-talked my mom with the Garabito house to give it to [Nombre 269], [Nombre 001] Said – that I sweet-talked your mom, remember that you spent all of your mom's money, don't come giving me grief, [Nombre 081] said you idiot what did you tell me, I don't forget what you told me, [Nombre 001] asked – what did I tell you, [Nombre 081] answered – let's sell that house because I've had a lot of expenses and sell your mom's joint, I mean you charged her for everything, [Nombre 001] said oh you idiot, [Nombre 081] said – I lent you the money and you haven't paid me back, [Nombre 001] said - what an idiot, [Nombre 081] get serious man, [Nombre 081] said – you don't connect what you say, if you don't remember rewind the tape, [Nombre 001] said – listen listen how cute, [Nombre 081] said – rewind the tape man, [Nombre 001] said – you started asking for money for your expenses and for everything and I tell you well you're going to have to get it from that house, because I'm not going to keep giving you more, your mom was asking for a million, asking for a million and a half, asking around here, like you say as if she were my wife, they continued talking about topics irrelevant to the investigation\" [sic] (cfr. fs. 693 to 694 of the judgment). In addition, the judgment also reports that the vehicle used by alias \"[Nombre 269]\" was registered under the name of another of the defendants, specifically ([Nombre 016]), who was one of the persons who acted as a front person (testaferro), information that was provided by witness [Nombre 323]. This circumstance is relevant because the investigation revealed, and was thus held as proven, that the criminal organization used different people as front persons (testaferros) in whose names the organization's assets were placed, which were later destined for the use and enjoyment of other members. As has been indicated, it is logical and expected that the connection of the leader of a criminal organization is not generated through direct evidence, due to the care he applies in his actions to avoid being caught, which is why other sources of information that allow him to be linked to the criminal activity must be taken into consideration. In the case of alias \"[Nombre 269]\", the subject's constant contact with [Nombre 001]'s organization, to the point that the latter supplied him with the property in which he subsequently carried out the illicit activity, is a clear and unequivocal indication of collusion in the criminal actions. The defense also points out that witnesses [Nombre 093],\n\n[Nombre 324], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 142], [Nombre 325], [Nombre 326] and [Nombre 092] declared that they had not heard or known of communications in which [Nombre 001] gave express orders to the remaining members of the organization to carry out the illicit activities. It is reiterated that criminal organizations function through a division of functions, which is why it is not necessary for the leader to issue instructions for the execution of each individual act, because his subordinates act based on the role and tasks assumed within the structure. What is relevant, then, is precisely to prove the obedience of the other defendants in relation to their leader, an aspect that was fully established. The defense argues that the fact that there were no seizures within this summary proceeding, whether through flagrante delicto arrests, controlled drug buys, or seizures from third parties, constitutes an impediment to considering the crime as established. This position, although understandable given the interests represented by the appellant, is limited and alien to a criminal phenomenon such as the one addressed in this case. The drug trafficking that was being executed was, for the most part, on a medium scale, in quantities that were not negligible, as kilograms of cocaine were supplied to other organizations, which they referred to as \"babys\" or \"bebés\". Seizures of drugs trafficked in larger volumes are not obtained with traditional investigation techniques characteristic of street-level drug trafficking, such as controlled buys or seizures from third parties. Circumstantial evidence, including the interception of telephone communications, is usually one of the main tools for proving illicit acts committed by organizations operating on a larger scale. An approach to one of the members of the organization to obtain drugs in the quantities that were being moved was clearly not viable, except through more specialized and complex investigation techniques, such as the use of an undercover agent. The way in which the trafficking was finally proven, through the connection with other summary proceedings in which drug seizures were indeed carried out, constitutes a valid investigation technique. It is recalled that our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence (principio de libertad probatoria), which allows facts to be proven by any lawful means of proof and, in this case, there are no reasons to question the legality of the evidence used as support for the conviction. The defense alleges that the questions and answers posed to witness [Nombre 092], who acted as the director of the investigation at the police level, were not transcribed. As a result of this omission, it claims that the judgment recorded false information. In this regard, it is necessary to highlight that the descriptive evidentiary reasoning does not consist of a literal transcription of the evidence. In the case of testimonial evidence, what must be recorded is a brief summary of the depositions, as provided in Article 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Regarding the detail of the questions that the defense refers to and which, in its judgment, discredit the proof of the facts, they actually do not generate that effect. Even in an exercise of hypothetically including what the witness said in response to those 23 defense questions, the conclusion regarding the criminal liability of [Nombre 001] remains unalterable. And it is that these inquiries were directed at establishing the non-existence of direct evidence compromising [Nombre 001], which, as already indicated, was recognized by the trial court, as well as some peripheral circumstances that do not constitute the central core of the accusation, for example, that the vehicle make Mitsubishi, model Montero, license plate [Valor 068] had compartments designed to hide drugs (fact 4.1), when what is relevant about the accusation is that the vehicle was used to transport drugs. As has been extensively explained, direct evidence of the criminal activities or communications in which [Nombre 001] gave direct orders to the other defendants was not only not essential, but it was not susceptible to being obtained, given the care that said subject took in his interactions and behavior in general. The submission of the defendants and the fulfillment of directives issued by [Nombre 001] is deduced from the joint and concatenated reading of the evidence, as was indeed done. The defense again invokes a violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment (principio de correlación entre acusación y sentencia) because, in its opinion, the attributed facts were not proven. Should this circumstance occur, the defect would be of a different nature, but not one of correlation, because this implies a declaration of criminal liability based on circumstances or facts not charged, which does not happen in this case, so much so that the defense itself recognizes the identity in the factual account of the accusatory requirement and the instance ruling. Generically, it states that what was held as proven at trial is contrary to what was accused, which stems from its own reading of the evidence and its position regarding the case, according to which direct evidence is essential for proving the illicit acts attributed to its client, which, as already indicated, is incorrect, because the proof of the facts based on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, is in accordance with the system of freedom of evidence (libertad probatoria) that governs us. The defense reiterates complaints regarding the filing of charges, but this aspect was extensively referenced when resolving the second ground of its challenge, to which it is referred for reading. With regard to the defense's theory of the case (tesis de descargo), which in the appellant's view was not considered, as well as the evidence offered in its support, the argument is also unfounded. Note that the judgment expressly states: \"DEFENSE THEORIES REGARDING DRUG TRAFFICKING. Regarding [Nombre 001]. The defendant [Nombre 001] in the exercise of his material defense focused his statement on denying that he had dedicated himself to leading a criminal organization devoted to the sale of drugs and justifying the origin of his income as the product of the sale of 3 properties, it being from said money and its investment in the placement of informal loans that he managed to increase his assets; the topic of the increase in assets from the money obtained from the sale of the properties will be analyzed in the section on money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Now, with regard to denying being the leader of a criminal organization devoted to the sale of drugs, the ruling has already been extensive in analyzing and substantiating the reasons why the facts of the accusation are held as proven to a degree of certainty. Despite the foregoing, it is appropriate to summarize that [Nombre 001] in part of his statement admits that certain members of his organization did indeed work for him, as in the case of [Nombre 029], [Nombre 161], alias [Nombre 210], among others, who were dedicated to lawful tasks such as caretaking of homes, care and transport of his children, deliveries of food to the El Buen Pastor correctional center. Regarding such tasks, they indeed occurred in that manner; however, it should not be forgotten that these persons, in addition to the lawful tasks, also had their role in the criminal structure according to each of the events that were held as proven against them. Mr. [Nombre 001] did indeed lead the criminal structure in question; one must question that out of all the members of the criminal organization, the only one who did not render accounts to anyone was Mr. [Nombre 001]; his home was the center of operations; in various calls it was called \"the office\". Apart from the entire dynamic of the intercepted calls, it is worth analyzing one from alias \"[Nombre 210]\" which is recorded in report IP-128-EN-19, a call in which a female asks alias \"[Nombre 210]\" about his boss, it was transcribed like this: \"sorry, I'm going to be a bit nosy but your boss. what does he do?\n\nSo, I don't know, I've always had that doubt, [Nombre 210] said – search on google for the famous [Nombre 084], femenina said – [Nombre 084]?, femenina said – oh ok, [Nombre 210] said – look him up, and then I'll tell you...he is called [Nombre 327], femenina said – mmmm, oh yes I, actually my grandmother lives there in Garabito and she is a very respectable lady, one of those older ladies that walk around and people greet them, [Nombre 210] said – actually we sometimes hang out around there, femenina said – Yeah? But where, by the chapel or what?, [Nombre 210] said – by the orange chapel, femenina said – mmm uh-huh, [Nombre 210] said – have you seen that chapel?, femenina said – yes of course around there, [Nombre 210] said – my boss built that one, he donated the money, femenina said – your boss built the chapel? Listen, [Nombre 210] said – aha...\"; we see then how alias \"[Nombre 210]\" reveals who the boss is and also about his economic solvency, likewise a call in which [Nombre 001] talks with his sentimental partner in communication under sequence 0217180, \"… [Nombre 081] said- all those guys who work with you and everything, oof no it's embarrassing, [Nombre 001] said- but it's them because why do you care what those assholes do, [Nombre 081] said- you raise crows and they peck your eyes out, [Nombre 001] said- aha and what, [Nombre 081] said- you make them your way...\", in the previous excerpt [Nombre 081], sentimental partner of [Nombre 001], demonstrated the hierarchical position that he has within the narco organization, as well as the total control of the actions of all the members of the group, where he is the one who decides the functions of each of them, as detected in the communication with sequence number 0216485, \"…[Nombre 001] said -he's going to bring it right now, \"[Nombre 083]\" is coming right now, he's going to pick you up at your house right now…\", as well as in the communication under sequence 0100465, \"…[Nombre 001] extra call said -Tell that son of a bitch \"[Nombre 083]\" why he hasn't paid me the damn number of \"[Nombre 252]\" man…\", the foregoing being a clear demonstration that [Nombre 001] is the one who issued the orders within the criminal structure. Attorney Francisco Mena Ayales argued that there was no seizure of a single dose of drugs, which is not true, he must be referred to the parallel cases and the drugs seized in the raids. In another of his arguments, the defense lawyer castigates the accusation for considering it imprecise and devoid of imputation, the court dismisses the argument since the conducts described in the accusation do impute conducts that qualify as the crime of drug trafficking, the same committed in co-authorship» [sic] (cfr. fs. 787 to 789 of the judgment). Despite the fact that what was said by the trial court was neither broad nor profuse, it is sufficient to understand that, in light of the abundant evidence existing against the defendant, the defense's thesis was so weak that it did not give rise to any doubt in his favor. Note that the trial court considered that it was not possible to maintain that the other members of the criminal organization, regarding whom their participation in the drug trafficking activity was proven, casually linked up with [Nombre 001] for other types of activities, such as informal money lending. In that sense, the trial court determined that this financial activity developed outside the law was, in reality, another of the mechanisms employed by the investigated parties to erase the money trail and give it an appearance of legitimacy, a conclusion that is correct and adequate, because that is what is deduced from the evidence. Although the court did not address in greater detail the evidence provided by the defense, regarding the money lending that [Nombre 001] carried out, that circumstance also does not have the virtue of detracting from the conclusion reached, regarding the origin of the money used for the acquisition of high-value goods that the defendant possessed. Regarding the origin of the money, the judgment was categorical that it came from the illicit activity of drug trafficking, with which this Chamber agrees.\n\nAs already detailed in other sections of this pronouncement, the evidence presented showed that the organization moved drugs on a medium scale, which it supplied to other criminal organizations and for which it received approximately ₡5,100,000 per kilogram of cocaine placed in that market, which constitutes a not insignificant amount of money and justifies the economic profile that its leader displayed. The trial court considered that what was said by [Nombre 001], regarding that he carried out an informal money lending activity, was real, because that aspect was even documented through the telephone interceptions and the witnesses' statements. However, it considered that it was an activity derived from the profits obtained as a product of drug trafficking, so that it resulted in an additional way to erase the money trail, a conclusion that, in effect, is derived from the combined examination of the evidence. Regarding the construction of the dwelling seized from [Nombre 001], located in Ciudadela León XIII, the judgment concluded that what was said by the defendant in his statement at trial, regarding that the property was settled on a single estate owned by his mother, was not true, insofar as the expert and testimonial evidence referred to the fact that it encompassed more surrounding lots: «what in definitive the court has held as accredited as we have been reporting, that dwelling was the operations center of the criminal structure, reflecting with this the economic power that he possesses and that according to the judicial police it was the dwelling of his mother who it was verified had moved to reside with her children in the province of Heredia in other properties and finally with those communications it was determined that [Nombre 001] had required the service of an engineering professional, for the preparation of the dwelling's plans and that added also to sequence 0339672, where [Nombre 007] alias \"[Nombre 109]\" made the reference that he was going to work on a house that they are going to build there for that guy \"[Nombre 153]\", as [Nombre 001] was identified. Finally, due to all the aforementioned, the court verified the high economic value of said dwelling, which is reflected through the appraisal expert report of the Forensic Engineering Department of the Judicial Investigation Organization, which was documented by means of Expert Opinion DCF:20200745-ING, visible on folios 3043 to 3066, of Volume VI of the Investigation file, it being established that the previously referenced dwelling maintained a value of (501,996,130.78) millions of colones, the expert mentioning that this value was obtained regarding the value of the works via market, as well as it was also used as a reference the \"Manual of Unitary Base Values per Constructive Typology\" of the year 2021, published by the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica, ONT), of the General Directorate of Taxation, of the Ministry of Finance, where the New Replacement Value (Valor de Reposición Nuevo, VRN) is initially determined, to subsequently carry out the corresponding studies of the useful life of each structure and other data of interest to obtain the Net Replacement Value (Valor Neto de Reposición, VNR) of said structures; it was further established in said expert report, that in effect as mentioned previously in this judgment, the constructed structure not only comprises the property with the Registered Plan No. [Valor 019], but also four more properties, which present the following registered plans: [Valor 020], [Valor 175], [Valor 022] and [Valor 176], which in definitive is totally contrary to that stated by [Nombre 001] in his statement during the debate, when he stated that that construction had been raised only on his mother's lot or estate» [sic] (cfr. fs. 1012 and 1013 of the judgment. Highlighting does not correspond to the original). As reflected in the preceding passage, the court relied on expert evidence, which has not been invalidated and which established the value of the property, taking into consideration, among other factors, the number of estates it covered, so the defendant's statements give way to the forcefulness of this evidentiary element. Finally, the defense complains that facts were held as proven in which [Nombre 046] participated, who died prior to the trial's realization. However, the appellant forgets that in the debate stage it is possible to carry out the historical reconstruction of facts in which persons who did not appear at trial participated, whether due to absence, contumacy, because they were previously judged or, as in this case, because they died, which in no way implies a judgment in absentia.\n\nNote that, in the case of [Nombre 046], his criminal responsibility was not declared; rather, it was established that he was a member of the criminal organization, within which he performed various tasks aimed at achieving the illicit purposes, a conclusion derived from the evidence and which was feasible because it formed part of the factual description. Based on the review carried out, this Chamber concludes that the conviction adequately and sufficiently supports the criminal participation of [Nombre 001] in the aggravated drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas agravado) activity that he led. Furthermore, none of the complaints directed against the trial judgment are admissible, since the defects attributed to it are not present. Consequently, the third ground of the appeal filed in favor of [Nombre 001] by the private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales is hereby declared without merit.\n\n**Sixth ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Nombre 001].** It claims \"Lack of reasoning for the penalty regarding the determination of the amount of the prison sentences.\" It indicates that his client was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment for the illicit act of drug trafficking, but the reasoning is improper, because it was limited to the exposition of the objective and subjective elements of the offense, without adding other factors that justify the imposition of that amount. He adds that a series of subjective considerations by the tribunal were set forth, which do not allow understanding why a greater reproach was made. He describes that reference was made to the broad time period in which the acts occurred, the excessive harm to the protected legal interest, and the large quantities of drugs. He questions that reference is made to the fact that a lot of drug was trafficked, when the truth is that no seizure from his client or any of the convicted persons could be established. He transcribes a passage from the judgment, then asserts that the determination of the penalty was based on subjective and arbitrary criteria. He criticizes the affirmation of the use of young people in the criminal activity, when this is not derived from the evidence. He affirms that some of the accused persons are young, but they do not have mental problems that prevent them from making decisions, such as being part of a criminal organization. He considers that there was an assessment based on hatred against his client. He disputes that it was said that the organization had a large number of members, because it is a subjective criterion, and that an increase in penalty was justified because the accused shouted at his collaborators. He believes that, apparently, this last circumstance is reproached to the accused because the tribunal felt personally attacked. He asserts that the judgment is based on lies, because it established that the drug sales were conducted in the dwelling where the accused grew up, which was not proven. He adds that the imposition of a penalty is an act of state power that affects fundamental rights, which must be reasoned. He indicates that deprivation of liberty should be avoided when less severe alternatives exist. He asserts that the lack of intellectual reasoning regarding the quantum of the penalty is notorious. As a grievance, he points out that the defective reasoning of the penalty led to the imposition of a sentence of 20 years of imprisonment on the defendant, for the crime of drug trafficking that was arbitrarily attributed to him. He requests that the ground be declared with merit and a rehearing be ordered for new reasoning of the penalty. Furthermore, he requests that the freedom of his client be ordered, because the pretrial detention was ordered with the trial judgment. **By majority, the ground is declared with merit.** The technical defense questions the penalty established for the crime of drug trafficking, considering that the imposition of the maximum extreme of the sanction provided in Article 58 of Law No. 8204 is not duly justified. After analyzing the trial court's ruling, this Chamber considers that it is correct. The reasoning of the sanction is, without a doubt, one of the neuralgic points in the drafting of a judgment, as it is the moment in which the State's power of command is made effective, through the reduction of the sphere of rights and freedoms of the person declared guilty of a crime. At this stage of the formation of a judgment, the exercise of weighing transcends the mere appreciation of the seriousness or harm to the protected legal interest caused by the conduct, and delves into the conditions of the person that may have influenced the commission of the crime, their motivation to commit a crime, the circumstances in which the act was perpetrated, among other useful aspects to individualize the degree of reproach that can be made for the illicit act committed. Because for each criminal offense maximum and minimum extremes are provided, which sometimes generate a wide margin of discretion, it is necessary for the justice administrator to exercise self-restraint, so as not to incur in excesses to which one is susceptible in an operation like this. For this reason, Article 71 of the Penal Code provides a list of factors that must necessarily be considered, including circumstances that may be favorable to the accused person. The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution No. 2012-244, of 10:38 a.m. on February 17, 2012, which this Chamber shares, stated the following: *«The reasoning of the penalty must indeed be composed of the analysis of the subjective and objective conditions of the facts, the intensity and magnitude of their implications, as well as by the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. In relation to the latter, it has been the criterion of this Chamber their importance, particularly at the time of determining in the judgment the amount of the penalty to be imposed; in this sense, in ruling 0314-2010 of 8:55 a.m. on April 30, 2010, issued by this Chamber, the jurisprudential criterion was reiterated, according to which: “The setting of the criminal sanction not only requires dwelling on the analysis of the aspects contained in the referred Article 71 but also, resorting to parameters of proportionality and reasonableness in order to provide a valid content to the imposition of the penalty, because that moment happens to be precisely the culminating point within the jurisdictional task in our criminal system, the moment in which the exercise of the ius puniendi is individualized and concretized. It is a constitutionally protected right that the accused clearly knows the reasons why the State decides to apply a custodial sentence to them, as well as the reasons why the quantum set for the application of said sanction is reasonable and proportional to the degree of reproach.”* [...] *In this operation, the purposes of the sanction defined by the legislator gain relevance, which must be considered for the development of the individualization of the penalty that is also a guarantee that stems, unavoidably, from respect for the principle of legality, in such a way that when setting it, the one that the legislator has defined for the conduct in question cannot be ignored, because in the current state of our system the judge cannot detach themselves from the legislative data, nor can they select or vary the sanction according to their best criterion, so that the dimension of the judgment of reproach, anticipated by the legislator in the minimum and maximum extremes of the established penalty, must be carried out within those margins and adhering to the guidelines of Article 71 of the Penal Code. Normative culpability obliges the judge to appreciate the circumstances surrounding the agent at the time of the act, to establish whether the legal system could—under the specific circumstances—require with greater or lesser severity an action adjusted to law, and thus the more exigible, the more reprehensible, and conversely, the less exigible, the less reprehensible. Culpability is nothing but the reproach for acting with a clear awareness of the unlawfulness of the act being performed, together with the failure to comply with the law and with society—without insurmountable physical risk and without insurmountable psychological pressure—in suitable circumstances to act correctly. It is a choice made consciously, where the subject opts for the violation of the norm despite having been able to act in accordance with the law. Now, just as it was said that greater exigibility leads to greater severity of the reproach, so greater reprehensibility leads to a greater penalty. The individualization of the penalty—to adapt the sanction to the level of reproach that corresponds to the responsible individual—implies making an effort of concreteness and analysis of that person's characteristics, which help to impose the just and proportional penalty to their culpability. Once the scope of the principle of culpability as a basis for imposing a penalty has been delimited, it is evident from the judgment of the case sub judice, specifically from considering...* [The sentence appears interrupted in the original text, continuing after the list marker without completion of the \"considerando\" reference.]\n\n...V of the judgment, that a detailed analysis of the elements inherent to the judgment of reprehensibility was carried out, always within the regulation established in Article 71 of the Penal Code, regarding the conduct attributed to the accused.» In the case before us, this Chamber observes that, indeed, [Nombre 001] was imposed the maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment provided for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, in accordance with Articles 58 and 77 of Law No. 8204. The reasoning set forth on this point consists of the following: «For [Nombre 001] the amount of TWENTY YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT; a sanction that responds, in the case of [Nombre 001], to a series of excesses in their maximum dimension in the realization of the objective elements of the criminal offense, for being the leader of the criminal enterprise, being the one who directed the distribution of drugs, as well as the control over the points of sale, specifically in the locality of León XIII. He issued orders using very young collaborators, which shows a total disregard for the stage of a person's youth, entirely blocking any possibility of personal betterment for the young people he recruited into his criminal organization, to the point of recruiting two siblings and their mother in the case of [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015]. Another reprehensible aspect is the number of members of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001], being at least 13 people, and the operating time span of at least 30 months, which results in a totally excessive manner and form of committing the crime. The imposing way in which [Nombre 001] issued his orders is exceedingly reprehensible, as for example when in multiple intercepted calls he intervened by telephone in a loud tone and even went so far as to shout at his collaborators, who received insults, offenses, and not to mention in the case of \"alias\" who was humiliated on repeated occasions. Another aspect in which excesses were committed to the maximum was in the operation modality of the organization, meaning that the drug acquisition power of the criminal structure was so great that it sold drugs to other criminal structures, as in the case of the organization led by [Nombre 099] alias \"[Nombre 109]\" and those evidenced in the different materializations, a reflection of which is the exorbitant profit that was obtained and for which it was necessary to conceal its illicit origin. Another of the circumstances that is extremely reprehensible is having used his own home, a place where he grew up since his childhood and obtained through his mother, as the operations center for his criminal organization.\n\nOn the other hand, during the development of the investigation, in calls that were intercepted by the jurisdictional authority, he showed a total disrespect for the figure of the judge, since he suspected that his calls could be being listened to, he uttered insults toward the figure of the judge as well as toward the figure of the police, specifically the judicial investigators, likewise in calls that were intercepted. Regarding the investigation period, it was proven that the common-law partner of Mr. [Nombre 001] was serving a prison sentence at the El Buen Pastor correctional center, the reason for the constant visits to said correctional center made by Mr. [Nombre 001]; this is of utmost interest regarding the reproach of the sanction, this because, as declared by the accused himself, he was left in charge of his children when his partner was imprisoned, however such circumstance in no way motivated him to refrain from having conflict with the legal system, even more so knowing that the crime for which his partner was serving a prison sentence was a crime of violation of the Psychotropic Substances Law, thus, far from showing respect for the conducts prohibited by law, he always kept the operation of his criminal organization running, which during the period his partner was in detention showed accelerated growth and expansion in the matter of drug trafficking. As for the personal conditions of the accused, although he is a relatively young person at 39 years of age and with a family, his family nor his age were a restraint from forming a criminal structure of the already known dimensions. On the other hand, the fact that he has no criminal record according to the criminal record certification is not a circumstance that takes precedence over the magnitude of the excesses in which he committed the crime. We see then that it is a crime whose abstract penalty is 8 to 20 years of prison, all and each of the analyzed excesses definitively must be reproached at the time of the penalty determination (dosificación de la pena), being maximum excesses, it is considered that the penalty proportional to the aforementioned reproach should be set at the amount of 20 years of prison» [sic] (cfr. fs. 980 to 982 of the judgment). As has already been indicated in this pronouncement, the greater the imposed penalty, the greater the rigor required of the justice administrator in the presentation of the reasons that justify it. In this case, it is observed that practically the entirety of the reasoning set forth by the trial court focused on the objective aspects of the punishable act, as allusions were made that the illicit act was committed by a criminal organization in which [Nombre 001] held the role of leader, which allowed him the recruitment of a significant number of people for these effects. But little or nothing is said about the other requirements provided in Article 71 of the Criminal Code, according to which the setting of the sanction must address the following parameters: «The court, in a reasoned judgment, shall determine the duration of the penalty to be imposed in accordance with the limits indicated for each crime, considering the seriousness of the fact and the personality of the principal or participant. To assess them, the following shall be taken into account: a) The subjective and objective aspects of the punishable act. b) The importance of the harm or danger. c) The circumstances of mode, time, and place. d) The quality of the determining motives. e) The other personal conditions of the active subject or of the victim to the extent that they have influenced the commission of the crime. f) The conduct of the agent subsequent to the crime. g) That the sentenced person is a woman who is in a state of vulnerability, due to poverty, due to having under her responsibility the care and maintenance of dependent family members, due to disability, or due to being a victim of gender-based violence, when that state has influenced the commission of the punishable act […]». The foregoing is relevant because, in accordance with Article 77, subsection f) of Law N.° 8204, the execution of the crime through an organized structure of three or more persons constitutes an aggravating circumstance, which implies that this circumstance in itself constitutes an objective element of the criminal type. The realization of the typical conduct, and in this case the verification of an aggravating circumstance, is an unavoidable requirement for setting the sanction, but by itself does not constitute a full justification for imposing the maximum extremity provided for it. It is necessary to analyze the link between the accused person and the illicit act in order to specify the criminal reproach that can be made, which in this case was limited regarding the analysis of proportionality and the purpose assigned to the penalty at the regulatory level. While it is true it is understandable and expected that a greater reproach be made to the person who leads a criminal organization, it is also true that the penalty serves a resocializing purpose, which is what should serve as a guide to the justice administrator when establishing the sanction. The analysis of necessity, suitability, and proportionality that should have been carried out so that the accused could understand why, in his case, a lower amount from the wide margin provided for the criminal type, ranging from 8 to 20 years of prison, was not adequate to fulfill that purpose, is completely lacking. Note that even the personal circumstances of the accused, which could have been favorable to him, are barely mentioned, but were not really weighed in the determination of the sanction. It must be remembered that, according to Article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, routine phrases are insufficient to meet the standard of an adequate statement of reasons (fundamentación), so the simple reference that «he is a relatively young person at 39 years of age and with a family, his family nor his age was a restraint from forming a criminal structure of the already known dimensions», constitutes a totally generic reference, which really does not explain why those circumstances are not conducive for the accused to return to his social and family environment in a shorter period. Despite the above, it is important to clarify that, by declaring the defect on its merits for deficiencies in the reasoning of the quantum of the penalty, this Chamber in no way endorses what was said by the defense, in the sense that the setting of the sanction was based on hatred toward its client. Such an affirmation, besides being extremely serious, because it suggests the commission of an illicit act by the trial judges, is totally unfounded, as the records of the debate and the reading of the judgment do not evidence any animosity or prejudice against the defendant that would have led the trial court to act outside the margins of the law and set the maximum sanction with the eagerness to harm him. The imposition of the maximum prison sentence was within the possibilities possessed by the a quo. What this Chamber observes and so declares, is that the justification presented for these effects was limited, even though greater rigor in the analysis was required, given that the maximum extremity of the penalty provided at the objective level was chosen. By virtue of the foregoing, upon verifying deficiencies in the statement of reasons for the sanction imposed on [Nombre 001] for the crime of international drug trafficking, by majority the ground is declared on its merits; consequently, the penalty imposed for said crime is annulled and a retrial is ordered for a new substanciation of that extremity by the original jurisdiction body, which must be composed of a different integration. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With accentuated respect, I separate from the decision of the majority of this ad quem chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare the sixth ground of the appeal by the private defense in favor of the accused [Nombre 001] without merit. After reviewing the seventh recital of the judgment (starting from folio 980), specifically with respect to the reasoning of the penalty imposed on [Nombre 001], for the commission of an aggravated drug trafficking crime, I consider that the decision of the a quo has been in accordance with the legal duty of statement of reasons (fundamentación); furthermore, that it conforms to the parameters of Article 71 of the Criminal Code, and that it involved an objective and reasonable graduation of the degree of culpability, which, as leader of the criminal organization in question, is inherent to the criminal conducts for which [Nombre 001] was convicted. The trial court did well, from my point of view, to contextualize the leadership of [Nombre 001], as a differentiating element of his criminal conduct, compared to that which can be associated with prison sentences lower than the maximum provided by law. The ruling not only reproaches this crime in the cited seventh recital, but also does so throughout the jurisdictional document; therefore, by virtue of the unitary character of the judgment, it is possible to understand the set of reasons weighed by the judging panel to decide upon the penalty of twenty years of prison for [Nombre 001]. Thus, the judgment stressed on a great number of occasions the rigid hierarchical structure that this criminal network had, proving that [Nombre 001] recruited and organized the members of the framework, assigned them specific roles and functions, managing to demonstrate that, in the intercepted communications, the members made reference to his leadership not only for the purposes of making important decisions, but also this being reflected in the custody and protection duties that the organization provided to [Nombre 001]. This is very relevant since, reasonably, the degree of culpability inherent to [Nombre 001] must be reflected in the amount of the penalty, taking into consideration his special position at the apex of the pyramidal figure of the network, as well as the particular characteristics of the organization as such, those of its members, and the specific way of committing crimes. In view of this, I am of the opinion that, in the seventh recital, the judgment did provide content to the reproach against [Nombre 001], and did so in accordance with the duty of reasoning that emanates from Articles 142 and 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as Article 71 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, when reasoning the penalty, the court characterized the criminal organization headed by [Nombre 001], highlighting that it involved a group of people dedicated to the sale of drugs to consumers, also its size and the transcendence of its activities which were clearly very considerable, as it even supplied drugs to other drug trafficking networks.\n\nIn that vein, [Name 001] was reproached for having managed to organize a large number of people – thirteen – and for keeping a drug trafficking network active and growing for more than two years – thirty months in total. Without a doubt, from my point of view, these first elements determine a sensible departure from the lower end of the prison sentence, because the trial court’s reasoning is intimately linked to a greater danger to public health. Indeed, the legal interest is at a higher risk when a person creates and leads a criminal network that not only engages in selling drugs through some points of sale, but also supplies kilograms of cocaine to other drug-trafficking groups. Furthermore, a network composed of a few members, four or six for example, is not the same as a structure where more than ten people actively participate, and which is a criminal group that not only remains active for more than two years, but which, as the trial court also considered, showed great evolution and development as time went on. Precisely regarding the members of the network, the adjudicating body reproaches [Name 001] for having recruited young people from a marginal urban community – Leon XIII neighborhood, Tibás, San José – rightly interpreting that this reveals his lack of concern for the youth of that locality, which clearly translates into an obstacle to any possibility of advancement for these people, since based on the characteristics of the majority of the network’s members, the a quo inferred that [Name 001] enlisted people of young age, low educational attainment, and with very scarce economic resources, highlighting that even three of the members belong to the same family – the mother and her two children. Up to this point, it is possible to determine, in my view, that the high degree of reproach made by the court was not arbitrary or subjective, but was based on the analysis of [Name 001]'s position in the organization, its basic characteristics – size, duration over time, and scale of its illicit business – and those of the members he recruited, all of which is in accordance with the parameters of Article 71 of the Penal Code. More abundantly, in the line of weighing the circumstances of the manner in which [Name 001] led the drug-trafficking organization, the judgment revisited and reproached the imposing way in which he controlled his business. Thus, the ruling indicates that in some calls [Name 001] was heard off-telephone, when he intervened with a loud tone of voice, and on other occasions he was heard resorting to shouting, insults, offenses, and humiliations, which the trial court correctly interpreted as a clearly violent method to maintain control of the business as well as the members of the network, to keep them in line according to the functions they had to fulfill in the machinery of the criminal enterprise. Finally, the jurisdictional document adds regarding the high degree of reproach toward [Name 001], as the leader of the criminal group, establishing that he obtained very high profits from drug trafficking, that he used his own house to erect the center of the organization’s operations, and that even when he was left in charge of his children, because his partner was confined in a penal center, he continued his illicit activity and made it grow considerably. With these arguments, the a quo not only showed that family and home roots were no deterrent for [Name 001], but that his link to the criminal network, its development, and the enjoyment of the high profits he obtained, presented him as a person openly confronted with the juridical order, to the point that the ruling also mentions that during the telephone intervention, [Name 001] was heard vilifying the figure of jurisdictional and police authority, considering it possible that his communications were intercepted by the Judicial Branch. Clearly, the sum of all these arguments constitutes, from my point of view, an objective reasoning in accordance with the parameters of Article 71 of the Penal Code, also highlighting that the court mentioned that [Name 001]'s age, his family nucleus, and the absence of previous prosecutions do not weaken the high degree of culpability arising from the proven facts. Therefore, I consider that the maximum sentence imposed on [Name 001] by the criminal court was just, proportional, and is directly motivated in light of the high reproach developed by the judgment. Therefore, my vote is to declare without merit the sixth ground of the appeal, filed by the private defense of the cited defendant.-\n\n**XXVIII. First ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Luis Cubillo Pacheco, on behalf of [Name 001].** He alleges \"*Illegitimate reasoning, contrary to law, violating the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment*\". He maintains that the judgment held it as proven that the accused committed the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). He affirms that the trial court departed from the factual framework (marco fáctico) contained in the accusation, which violated the defendant's right of defense, despite the fact that the technical defense refuted the charges brought. He reviews the content of the accusation with the purpose of demonstrating that none of the verbs used describe conduct attributable to [Name 001], nor were they accredited at trial. He transcribes fact 5.1 of the accusation and questions that the Public Prosecutor's Office failed to demonstrate in what way, or through what negotiations, the accused would have invested money in the indicated property, so that —in his view— it was not possible to hold that point as proven. He assures that the court introduced inaccurate facts in the judgment, by affirming that the property is registered across several lots, when in reality it is a single one. He specifies that the other mentioned lots —numbers [Value 140], [Value 016], [Value 141], and [Value 142]— are not the property of the defendant, but of persons unrelated to the process, who were never called to testify, nor investigated for their possible link to the accused. He reiterates that fact 5.1 could not be considered proven, nor attributed to his client. He emphasizes that the court limited itself to basing its decision on the presence of people who frequented the property, without greater evidentiary support. He sets forth fact 5.4 and points out that, at the closing arguments stage (etapa de conclusiones), it was objected that the Public Prosecutor's Office failed to establish, or prove, how, by what means, at what time, or place the accused would have appointed a third party to carry out acts of acquisition of assets. He assures that there is no evidentiary element that permits affirming that [Name 001] delegated or entrusted another person with actions related to that fact. He records fact 5.8 and maintains that, although it was not proven, it was held as proven without an intellective analysis being made or the reasons that supported such a conclusion being set forth. He stresses that it is not true that [Name 246], in her capacity as representative of Vanguard Cleaning RC S.A., was subject to a criminal case for this fact; she was never charged, has no open proceeding, and has not been convicted. He assures that there is no evidence whatsoever linking his client to the acquisition of the property mentioned in that section of the accusation, which stood in the way of reaching a state of certainty. He points out that [Name 225] testified at trial, an investigator from the Money Laundering Section (Sección de Legitimación de Capitales), who stated that he could not determine transfers, or payments to third parties, for the purchase of movable property or real property, so he questions whether the court adequately assessed that testimony. He transcribes fact 5.9 and affirms that the same objections formulated regarding fact 5.8 are applicable to it. He alleges that the judgment contains false statements, since it is not true that [Name 236] was subject to a criminal case for that fact. He reiterates that there is no evidence that links the accused to the acquisition of the asset, so it was not possible to hold the fact as proven. He again cites the testimony of [Name 225], who indicated that no transfer or payment to third parties could be established, an aspect that —he affirms— was ignored by the court. He relates fact 5.10 and maintains that it could not be accredited for the same reasons previously set forth. He underscores that it is not true that [Name 236] was subject to a criminal case for that fact, nor was any link demonstrated to his client, for which reason he considers that the court incurred errors, both in the assessment of the evidence and in the reasoning. He asserts that none of the facts related to the crime of money laundering were duly proven, nor were the circumstances of time, manner, and place established. He affirms that the court departed from the factual framework of the accusation and limited itself to developing an extensive exposition on the personal relationships among various defendants, to justify a conviction for facts not charged. As for the grievance, he points out that his client was declared the responsible perpetrator of the crime of money laundering, despite the principles of correlation between accusation and judgment, due process, presumption of innocence, and right of defense having been violated. He requests the nullity of the judgment and that an acquittal be issued in favor of his client. **Second ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Luis Cubillo Pacheco, on behalf of [Name 001].** He alleges \"*Improper assessment of the evidence presented, lack of intellective reasoning, violating the rules of logic and sound rational criticism (sana crítica racional) regarding the reasoning itself*\". He considers that the conviction imposed on his client lacks support from the perspective of logic and sound criticism, as well as in light of the evidence rendered at trial, part of which was not even mentioned in the judgment. He recalls that during the debate, the testimony of Elizabeth Segura González was received, in her capacity as an expert witness, author of report 10-SLC-R-22-CPA-15-21. He indicates that the expert was specifically questioned about [Name 001], but the content of that questioning was not gathered by the court, nor were her responses analyzed in the ruling. He transcribes fragments of the expert's declaration and highlights that, when asked if his client was an object of interest in the investigation, she answered negatively. He underscores that, according to the summary made by the court, the expert referred to other defendants, but not to [Name 001], who —he affirms— was never considered relevant in the investigative process. He reproduces other passages of the testimony, from which he concludes that his defendant's participation is excluded. Regarding the witness [Name 225], an official of the Money Laundering Section, he highlights that he stated the impossibility of identifying transfers or payments made by the accused to other defendants for the acquisition of assets. He assures that this same line was upheld by the other witnesses in the process, who coincided that it was not possible to establish the use of third parties for the purchase of assets, not even those located at the accused's domicile during the raids. He specifies that none of the registered owners were interviewed or charged, so —in his view— it was not possible to prove the configuration of the criminal type. He maintains that these elements were not considered or mentioned in the judgment, which he describes as an insurmountable defect. He affirms that the evidence did not permit proving any of the conduct attributed to his client; on the contrary, the testimonies were clear in excluding his participation. However, the court omitted to carry out an intellective analysis of the evidence, did not examine what was declared by the witnesses, nor explained why it dismissed such statements. He assures that the judgment lacks a reasoned exposition that justifies the conviction for the crime of money laundering, since it contains no analysis, assessment, or discarding, of the evidentiary elements presented at trial.\n\n[He] argues that the judgment lacks the essential requirements established in procedural regulations, failing to adequately explain the reasons why a certain value was assigned to the evidence, relying on a \"referential framework (marco referencial)\" to support the conviction. As a grievance, he points out that a custodial sentence was imposed on his client when a correct assessment of the evidence should have led to a state of reasonable doubt. He consequently requests the annulment of the judgment and that an acquittal be issued in favor of [Name 001].\n\nFor the reasons that will be stated, the ground is rejected. Because they are closely related, the two grounds of the appeal are heard and decided jointly. As a result of the comprehensive review of the judgment, based on the complaints raised by the defense, this Chamber concludes that the acts attributed to [Name 001], constituting the offense of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), were duly accredited, with the exception that will be discussed later regarding fact 5.14. From the section of proven facts, specifically point 5, it is clear that [Name 001] was attributed the following:\n\n\"5. During the investigation period from April 2018 to October 2020, the Criminal Organization formed by the investigated parties [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016], [Name 019], [Name 033], as a result of the substantial illicit profits produced from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transfer property of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement and rights over different properties or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the domestic drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001]. 5.1 In the period from 2018 until October 13, 2020, the accused [Name 001], as a result of the significant amounts of money generated from drug trafficking, invested the money generated from this illicit activity in the property built and used as a dwelling by the same accused [Name 001], in [...], on properties number [Value 014], [Value 015], [Value 209], [Value 017] and [Value 018], which are registered in the name of third parties, a dwelling that maintains an economic value of ¢535,886,905.72 (five hundred thirty-five million eight hundred eighty-six thousand nine hundred five colones and seventy-two cents). A dwelling that was found to be in use and enjoyment by the accused during the indicated period [...] 5.4 In the period from January 2018 until October 13, 2020, the accused [Name 001] designated the accused [Name 030] alias \"[Name 241]\" to carry out the necessary actions for the acquisition of high economic value property, using money derived from the illicit drug trade, and also delegated to [Name 030] the recruitment of third parties to facilitate their names and identities to register vehicles and property in their names, thus concealing the illicit origin, property that was intended for the use and enjoyment of the accused [Name 001] and other members of the criminal group [...] 5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of property acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030] performed the necessary steps for the purchase and registry inscription of the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style vehicle, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this property at the Purdy Motor S.A. agency for the sum of ¢44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was designated by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group, [Name 001] [...] 5.8 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value property, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado style vehicle, worth ¢13,240,000.00 (thirteen million two hundred forty thousand colones), which was registered, for the purpose of concealing its illicit origin from drug trafficking, in the name of the corporation Vanguard Cleaning RC S.A., represented by [Name 246] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process. 5.9 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value property, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the Mitsubishi Sportero style vehicle, license plate [Value 167], with armored-type security devices, worth ¢23,462,250.00 (twenty-three million four hundred sixty-two thousand two hundred fifty colones), which was registered, for the purpose of concealing its illicit origin from drug trafficking, in the name of [Name 236] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process. 5.10 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value property and concealment to divert its illicit origin, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the Yamaha motorcycle, WR450F model, license plate [Value 168], which was registered, for the purpose of concealing its illicit origin from drug trafficking, in the name of [Name 236] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process [...] 5.14 During the period from January 2018 to October 2020, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001], for the purpose of inserting, diversifying and stratifying the money derived from drug trafficking, delegated to the accused ([Name 046]) (deceased) the function of straw owner (testaferro) in order to conceal, at the registry level, the illicit origin of movable property, among them the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado T style vehicle, 2014 model, beige color, with license plate [Value 035], which was acquired for an amount of ¢24,710,000.00 in April 2019, a vehicle that was designated for the use of the members of the criminal group and the material execution of illicit activities\" [sic] (cf. fs. 297 to 301).\n\nThe intellectual rationale set out by the lower court (a quo) for accepting those facts as proven is found, for the most part, in the section titled \"Intellectual Rationale on Money Laundering (Fundamentación intelectiva sobre legitimación de capitales)\" (cf. fs. 791 to 835 of the judgment). What concerns facts 5.4 and 5.6 is drawn from the sections identified as \"Regarding [Name 030] and the drug trafficking acts\" (cf. fs. 724 to 768 of the judgment) and \"Facts related to [Name 030] and [Name 019]\" (cf. fs. 834 to 860 of the judgment). After the meticulous examination carried out by this Chamber, it is considered that the intellectual analysis expressed by the trial court is adequate and sufficient to sustain the criminal liability of [Name 001] for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales).\n\nThe judgment begins its exposition on the matter with the following reasoning: \"The starting point that the court has assessed is the financial profile analyzed and set forth in the reports of the Capital Legitimization Section, numbers 25-SLC-CI-20 of the month of August of the year 2020, from folio 1789 to 2020, the addenda I, II, and III to that same report, 31-SLC-CI-19 from the same section at folios 2823 to 2851, report 87-SLC-2022 at folios 3377 to 3779, and 10-SLC-R-2-CPA-15-21 at folios 3733 to 3758 and their addenda; in which the financial analyses are provided that link [Name 001], the rest of the accused, and the determination of the growth of assets (crecimiento patrimonial) and the acquisition of movable and immovable property; given that according to these expert reports, the value of the criminal organization's assets amounts to 870 million colones (see folio 3754), which has been justified through the traceability of the monetary operations and the findings from the communications of the telephone interception in which the collection of large sums of money was established, both from drug trafficking, such as when \"the babies or babys\" were mentioned, which was nothing other than the amounts for the payment of kilos or half-kilos of drugs; therefore, the Court had at its disposal a large number of compelling clues and evidence, which allowed it to establish that [Name 001] and his subordinates maintained an economic level or profile that was above what their activities evidenced. Proof of this was that during various stationary surveillances and follow-ups of the members of the criminal organization, over a two-year period, it was not possible to see that any of the accused persons carried out any lawful activity that had the formal or informal solidity to establish that, as a result of it, profitable and sufficient economic gains were obtained to be able to buy various high-value homes or vehicles. This was a common denominator in each and every one of the accused, who, as a product of obtaining the criminal organization's money, even recruited third parties who provided their names to register property in their name and thus conceal the illicit origin of the resources, whose purpose was the use and enjoyment thereof, including by [Name 001].\" [sic] (cf. fs. 794 to 795 of the judgment).\n\nAs noted in previous sections of this pronouncement, there was sufficient evidence to link the members of the investigated criminal organization, among them [Name 001], to drug trafficking activities, mainly at a medium scale. The objective of an activity of this nature is obtaining profits for their subsequent enjoyment, which requires an entire logistics to achieve it, since at the financial system level there are various controls that aim to detect, control, and prevent the entry of illicit capital, such as, for example, Cash Transaction Reports (Reportes de Operaciones en Efectivo, ROE) and Suspicious Transaction Reports (Reportes de Operación Sospechosa, ROS). Precisely to evade those controls and to be able to use the money, in large criminal structures, like the one prosecuted in this case, a series of mechanisms are developed so that the assets cannot be linked to their legitimate owners, and in this way any connection to the criminal activity from which they come is diluted. One of them is that employed by the accused in the present case, which corresponds to the acquisition of high-value assets through third parties who act as frontmen (testaferros), who only appear at the registry level, while the true owners are third-party members of the organization. In this context, the economic profile of the accused constitutes an important source of information, hence the importance that the court of origin (a quo) gave to these inputs, since the field investigation carried out by the judicial police and the expert analysis executed by the specialists of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial) allowed determining that, despite the fact that the majority of the investigated persons had no lawful economic activities—which was corroborated in more than two years of investigation against them—they held assets amounting to several hundreds of millions of colones, which is not a minor detail, but rather a true reflection of the profits they obtained as a product of drug trafficking. The only ones who reported economic activities were [Name 030]—which was analyzed when hearing the appeals filed in his favor—and [Name 001]. Regarding the latter, despite having registrations with State institutions, these reflect limited economic movements that in no way justify his increase in assets. The defense theory, regarding the financial profile of [Name 001], revolved around his economic income coming from informal money lending. However, the court of origin validly concluded that, even though there was indicative evidence that the accused carried out this activity in parallel, in reality it consisted of an additional way to place the illicit capital, to hide its trail. Consequently, it was completely ruled out that said informal activity was the exclusive source of [Name 001]'s income: \"Thus, the court has given analysis to the financial profile presented by [Name 001], which is based on the reports and statements of the investigators and experts who declared at the trial, but despite the fact that the accused [Name 001] came to indicate in his statement that his economic resources came from the placement of money in informal loans, known as 'loan sharking' (gota a gota), the truth is that, as has been demonstrated in the respective analysis regarding the drug trafficking actions, this activity is a form of diversifying or layering the profits obtained as a consequence of drug trafficking, and they have presented as a common denominator that for the loans the same subordinates (accused) of the drug trafficking were used, developing a parallel activity; but the court categorically rules out that his income is solely from the loans, which it is worth saying were developed illegally, outside of financial intermediation, and although in his right to a material defense the indictee [Name 001] wanted to explain it that way in the trial, the truth is that that dynamic announced by him is, for the court, only a defensive strategy to justify and evade that his main activity was drug trafficking, coupled with the fact that, as established in Report No. 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21, the accused [Name 001] during the investigation period did not register economic activities or tax obligations; however, an update of the tax status was carried out by the judicial expert Rodrigo Chaves Calvo and the auditor Rodrigo Monge Mora, it was established through the Virtual Tax Administration System (ATV) of the Ministry of Finance, that on February 20, 2021, that is, while serving 'Pretrial Detention', [Name 001] was registered before the Ministry of Finance under the economic activity of 'LOAN SERVICE (PRESTAMITAS)', which definitively coincides with that strategy and furthermore is a sign that what is intended is to give the impression that his income comes from that informal and illegal activity; but beyond the fact that the court considers that this increase is based on the drug trafficking activities and it has been so proven, it was never accredited by the defense of [Name 001], through evidence admitted to the trial, that this excessive increase in assets was solely the product of informal loans, and much less that an informal activity generates exorbitant profits like those referred to by [Name 001], when he said they oscillated around an amount of fourteen million per week just in interest, and that his base was the sale of a property in the year 2015. And although the court corroborated that the accused had indeed obtained a property in the year 2010 that he subsequently sold on October 15, 2015, for the sum of SIX MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES (₡6,400,000.00), the truth is that he could not provide specific or approximate data, all of which contradicts the logic of universal rules and denotes an eagerness to justify what was stated in the expert reports. It is worth saying that it was determined that [Name 001] did not dedicate himself to lawful activities, so how could he sustain a financial 'business' of that magnitude, which makes it rather contrary to the investigation findings that allowed establishing that he dedicated himself to criminal activities.\" [sic] (Supplied emphasis. Cf. fs. 795 to 796 of the judgment). From the preceding passage it is noted that the trial court did analyze the defense theory, but dismissed it for lacking sufficient evidentiary support and also for being openly inappropriate in light of the prosecution's evidence, which points to [Name 001] as a co-perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking, for which he received significant profits. In addition to the foregoing, the court of origin took into consideration the late attempt to leave some trace of the lending activity to third parties in formal information systems, because the only existing record in that sense is after the date of the defendant's arrest for this cause, which supports the prosecutorial theory in the sense that these simultaneously constituted a front and a way to legitimize the large sums of money obtained from the illicit drug trade. In addition to the foregoing, various sources of information were considered to rule out that the accused had records of lawful activities that justified his income: \"if we look at report 25-SLC-CI-20 C INV 63-19, it is stated that he has no information in the Costa Rican Social Security Agency (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social) regarding work activities, has no registrations as an employer, does not present, nor has he ever presented, records of economic activities or tax obligations, does not hold movable property in his name, since according to digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 210] he does not register assets of this type. Establishing through digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 211], the analyzed history only had one motorcycle with license plate [Value 080]. Regarding immovable property, according to digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 212] he does not possess assets of this type, has no connection to companies according to digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 213], and regarding financial products in banks, in Report No. 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21, it was indicated that he had at the Bank of Costa Rica (BCR), the Savings Account in Colones No. [Value 039], which is blocked, with a balance of FORTY-FOUR COLONES AND 20/100 (₡44.20), registered with an opening date of February 1, 2005, and a last movement date of July 15, 2020. It is of interest that during the year 2018 in this savings account 59 movements were made, related mainly to 05 'Deposits', 12 records of 'Interest Earned', 01 'ATM Deposit', and 39 'Purchases in Commerce', for the total sum of income of TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED NINETY-THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINE COLONES AND 55/100 (₡2,393,709.55), as well as a total of expenses for an amount of THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND FIFTY-THREE COLONES AND 42/100 (₡3,623,709.55). The difference in favor of the debits is due to the balance that the account carries from periods prior to the study. The already referenced experts highlight that the registered income comes from [Name 001] himself and from three other individuals by the names of ([Name 013]), [Name 022], and [Name 354]. Likewise, the expenses were mainly originated by purchases in businesses associated with the sale of personal articles from high-value brands, hardware stores, and supermarkets. Hence, it contradicts the rules of logic that if [Name 001] indicated that his income averaged around 14 million per week just in interest, he did not maintain those amounts of money in this or other accounts, and the court asks, if the accused did not have accounts in national or foreign banks, where was that money kept? How was it safeguarded?\n\nand if those gains hovered around 14 million per week in interest, just to give an example, they would be 56 million colones per month, but they do not coincide with the data from the only bank where he reported income, which coupled with the fact that when opening that account he stated that he was an “Independent Merchant,” specifically in the “Sale of Household Products” and that the sole source or origin of the funds comes from his activity as an Independent Worker; which does not correspond with the findings of the investigation where no licit commercial activity was ever established, or any activity of a nature other than the detailed criminal actions, and furthermore, the court observes that the income recorded in the BCR account comes from two of the accused in this criminal structure, the brothers [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022], who were precisely among his closest associates, and who gave custody to money and drugs in his home along with his mother, the accused [Nombre 015]; therefore, the court is definitively certain that the financial justification that [Nombre 001] tried to provide is not sustainable; consequently, after tracing the benefits of the drug trafficking activity, it can be clearly stated that the sole objective of [Nombre 001] was to hide and conceal the true origin of the assets and money, and that he had the accompaniment of the rest of the criminal organization that helped him evade the legal consequences of his acts” (cf. pages 797 to 798 of the judgment). From all the foregoing, this Chamber derives that the trial court did conduct a broad and meticulous study of the evidence, in order to determine that, in effect, [Nombre 001] did not have a licit source of income, or at least one that did not proceed from a crime, to justify the high-value assets he held; without verifying deficiencies in the evidentiary analysis or in the conclusions reached. Despite the fact that they are two independent crimes, drug trafficking and money laundering have an extremely clear connection, because the former is what precedes the latter and which explains the asset increase of the accused. The drug that was demonstrated to be trafficked by the organization on a medium scale, yielded income of approximately ₡5,100,000 for each kilogram of cocaine placed on the illicit market, a sum that is by no means negligible and that is indeed consistent with the assets held by [Nombre 001] together with his subordinates. It is important to highlight, prior to the analysis of each specific event attributed to the defendant, that this Chamber shares the thesis set forth by the a quo, regarding the fact that the perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking may, in turn, be the perpetrator of the crime of money laundering, known in legal doctrine as “self-laundering.” In this regard, the judgment states: “the crime of Money Laundering is commonly related to the crime of possession, storage, and trafficking of drugs, but both crimes, although unavoidably related, as is the case here, by reason of the involvement of the same persons, both transcend different legal interests, and hence the criminal organization of [Nombre 001] diversified its actions or ‘modus operandi’; therefore, this position has been recognized in case law, as defined by the Criminal Cassation Chamber, when it went on to develop its considerations regarding ‘self-laundering’ and the placement or investment phase, also called ‘placement’ in doctrine, stating the following: ‘III. [...] In another order of ideas, it is also unavoidable to address the issue of self-laundering, as established in numeral 69 of the cited law. According to the wording of this article transcribed above, a double intent is required; that is, knowledge and acceptance that the assets to be laundered come from a serious crime (punishable with penalties that have a threshold of at least four years of imprisonment) and knowledge and willingness to carry out the actions provided for in subsections a) and b) of ordinal 69 of the aforementioned law, namely: ‘Article 69.- Anyone shall be sanctioned with a prison sentence of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts, or transfers assets of economic interest, knowing that they originate from a crime that, within its penalty range, can be sanctioned with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to hide or conceal the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever hides or conceals the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement, or rights over the assets or their ownership, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its penalty range can be sanctioned with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more. (...)” (the underlining is not part of the original). That knowledge and acceptance of the prior crime does not exclude that he acquired it by virtue of his own participation in the prior illicit act. Such a limitation, exception, or prohibition is not described in the referred ordinal and, for that reason, nothing prevents the perpetrator of the preceding crime from also being the perpetrator of the one that sanctions money laundering. They are distinct punitive conducts, different protected legal interests, just as the intent required in the prior criminality is also different from that in asset laundering. The latter, in turn, is a common crime that can be committed by any active subject without meeting special characteristics of authorship [...] In this order of ideas, it is the criterion of this Criminal Cassation Chamber that the criminal type precepted in Law number 8204 contains no exception or limitation that prevents punishing the crime of asset laundering by the perpetrator of the preceding crime, as it is a common crime that protects different legal interests, with illicit conducts not subsumable into each other, and where the law itself makes no reservation or exception.’ (...), Resolution No. 00716-2022, of 10:56 a.m. on June 29, 2022; hence, for the Court it has been absolutely clear that the accused [Nombre 001] built an economic platform through his link to drug trafficking (preceding crime), and as a consequence of his gains placed them in other activities linked to organized crime; therefore, the court is certain that [Nombre 001] and the other accused indeed performed the actions that money laundering requires” (the underlining is supplied). The thesis followed by the trial court, supported by the case law line established by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on the matter, in the opinion of this Chamber is correct. Despite the intimate relationship between both criminal types, the truth is that they protect different legal interests and do not have a relationship of speciality, consumption, or exclusion of one with respect to the other, so as to deem that the same person cannot incur both illicit acts. On the contrary, our legislator chose to independently devalue the exhaustion phase of the preceding crime, when different actions are carried out aimed at introducing into the formal economy the gains obtained as a product of committing a serious crime. This circumstance was not objected to by the defense; however, it is brought up because it constitutes an aspect of great relevance for understanding the judgment. Now, with regard to the verification of the illicit conducts, it is held that [Nombre 001] was attributed, as one of the ways of laundering the illicit capital, the construction of a home with money proceeding from drug trafficking, in San José, Tibás León XIII, Garabito, Alameda I, affecting properties number [Valor 014]—registered in the name of his mother—, [Valor 015], [Valor 016], [Valor 017], and [Valor 018]—registered in the name of third parties— . Regarding said building, the judgment details: “having analyzed the point and compared with the evidence reproduced in the proceedings, it was verified that as a product of the economic income from drug trafficking, during the preliminary investigation, those in charge of the investigation noticed the construction of a home in the Ciudadela León Trece, with the first identification of the property documented through police report number IP-359-EN-19, prepared on October 17, 2019, from page 753 of Volume II to page 1019 of Volume III, where a photograph was observed on page number 115 of said report, showing the aforementioned property in the construction process, and that it was absolutely clear was in the construction process; in this regard, investigator [Nombre 092] stated in the proceedings: ‘with the home in which [Nombre 001] reported was in [...], that home from the beginning of the case until the police conclusion we were able to document all the modifications it underwent and the permanence and use by [Nombre 001], the changes; initially the home was relatively small at a visual level, as the case developed they developed it with more floors and stories until reaching 5 stories, encompassing a higher space than initially could be documented, registry-wise I do not have the data on how many lots it encompassed, but visually it encompassed more lots than those we visualized at the beginning, not only through surveillance but through interceptions it was possible to document the permanence at the place of [Nombre 029], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 083], [Nombre 001], even non-telephonic but visual vehicles like that of alias [Nombre 275], subjects like [Nombre 030], vehicles and others in the area, alias [Nombre 109], with [Nombre 010] multiple communications’ (...), hence it was indeed verified the start of that construction, which occurred during the investigation period, so it could be clearly indicated that the accused [Nombre 001] invested the gains from drug trafficking in said home, located in [Nombre 352], which by its dimensions inevitably stood out for the size of the construction, with five stories, garages, decoration, paint, which was part of the external facade, since inside the high finishes and materials provided an excessive luxury as will be seen further on; without neglecting that said property comprised the use of several properties, located in [...], these being registrations [Valor 014], [Valor 014], [Valor 015], [Valor 016], [Valor 017], and [Valor 018], maps [Valor 019], [Valor 020], [Valor 021], [Valor 022], and [Valor 023]” [sic] (cf. pages 800 to 801 of the judgment).\n\nAs is evident from the foregoing passage, the evidence produced at trial, including the testimony of judicial investigator [Name 092], who directed the inquiries, together with the police reports, made it possible to determine the construction of the dwelling during the investigation period, meaning that the location of that structure did not constitute a random find, but rather that the judicial authorities witnessed its building. However, the link to [Name 001] and the criminal organization was established through several means: the first is that one of the lots on which it was built is registered in the name of his mother, [Name 003], but, moreover, it was a place of constant presence and visitation by the accused. In fact, the judgment states that, based on the evidence produced, it was established that the security arrangements developed around [Name 001] had that property as a point of convergence, because the accused would organize themselves when the defendant was about to appear at the site: \"*it is important to emphasize, as indicated by investigator [Name 092], that from the beginning of the investigation it was being reported that the criminal structure was based in that citadel and that its members frequented said dwelling, in addition to the fact that in the intercepted communications it was established that this was the nerve center for the criminal activity, not in vain did all the accused perform a function of guarding the property, with firearms, surveillance cameras, and also because in the surroundings of that alameda Uno, when the criminal leader was to enter or leave, a whole prior surveillance operation was carried out regarding the presence of police forces or specific points where they would go ahead on motorcycles, whether upon his arrival or departure, to verify said police presence and prevent [Name 001] from being intercepted by the Public Force or any other police body, a clear example that the organization had to carry out the protection of the leader [Name 001] arose on December 4, 2018, in the vicinity of the aforementioned house on alameda Uno León Trece, the administrative police Fuerza Pública had set up a police checkpoint, in which [Name 001] was detained, what is particular is that both [Name 001], his mother, [Name 029] alias \"[Name 083]\" and another of the accused [Name 161] alias \"[Name 083]\" (absent from the proceedings), who was [Name 001]'s right-hand man, expressed their disagreement with the prior surveillance from when [Name 001] left that dwelling under construction and the \"preventive\" work to avoid being detained by the police authorities*\" (cf. pp. 801 to 802 of the judgment). In addition to the foregoing, that is, observing the accused persons having contact with the property, the *a quo* court took into consideration information from telephone interceptions, in which the defendants referred to the construction of the dwelling and the conditioning that [Name 001] was giving to the place: \"*the profits obtained were indeed destined for the construction of this luxurious house and thus the accused ([Name 001]), with the help of his subordinates, has concealed the existence of the resources from drug trafficking, which have been invested in said construction and thereby ensured the appearance of legality; even another of the accused linked to the criminal organization boasted about this construction (which coincides with the forensic engineering analysis) and that it was used for the effective achievement of criminal actions, the following communication reflects this circumstance: From [Value 194]. Call identified with sequence number 0334036. The intercepted telephone right maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 195]. This call was made at 17:24 hours on July 4, 2019: “[Name 340], alias “[Name 210]” made a call to a female. The conversation yielded data of interest from minute 00:01:16 to minute 00:01:45. [Name 210] said – It’s that the “boss” is making, is making some rooms, it’s that he made a house for his mom. To which the female said – Mhm. [Name 210] said – right, then one house down below was left empty, then he did the two-story thing, upstairs he made rooms for us and downstairs he’s making a gym. The female answered – Is he making rooms for you guys? [Name 210] said – Yes and he’s making a gym and a study for tattooing. To which the female answered – Mhm. [Name 210] said – Can you imagine how crazy, the good thing is that I’m going to have a gym and I won’t have to pay. The conversation continues without generating data of interest. Communication ends*\" [sic] (cf. pp. 804 to 805 of the judgment). That information coincides with what the judicial police was observing and documenting in real time regarding the construction of the dwelling. As already indicated, another piece of evidence considered to link the property to [Name 001] was that one of the lots where construction was taking place belonged to the defendant's mother, which is confirmed in the following communication set out in the judgment: \"*the accused [Name 029] spoke with the mother of [Name 001], identified as “doña [Name 168]”, and indicated to her that in the house of interest located in the area of the [Name 353]”, [Name 001] would have assigned ([Name 013]) alias [Name 124] and [Name 007] alias “[Name 109]” to guard the structure, because they were doing work on it, but he also mentions that it was in “her house”, which makes sense since the five-story dwelling is grounded on estate number [Value 014], whose owner is [Name 003], mother of alias “[Name 084]”, which makes it clear that in said dwelling money, drugs, weapons were stored and vehicles and motorcycles acquired with the profits from drug trafficking were kept for the continuation of the criminal activity being carried out, which was not only in use and under construction, but was under the total control of the criminal structure, the following is the reflection of the communication that the court took into consideration: From [Value 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0026969. The intercepted telephone right maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 214]. This call was made at 20:47 hours on April 26, 2019.*\n\n[Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 168], At minute 00:00:22 [Nombre 083] said – well what happens is that he's not there, [Nombre 168] said – why?, [Nombre 083] said – I don't know, he left, [Nombre 168] said – when?, [Nombre 083] said – a little while ago, his son, [Nombre 168] said – isn't he out playing?, [Nombre 083] said – mmm I don't think so, [Nombre 168] said – and what did he say?, [Nombre 083] said – nothing, he just said that, well he left [Nombre 123] and [Nombre 109] there at the house, [Nombre 168] said – and why does he leave those people there?, [Nombre 083] said – because they're working there at the, at his house, well, where his house was before, they're doing I don't know what there and so that's why they are, they stayed there to watch over that, while he finished working because I don't know what time that guy leaves, since it's just one guy” (…); it is clear that said dwelling no longer belonged to the accused's mother and that in effect that property and the other properties on which it was built were so by reason of the use and ownership of [Nombre 001]” (cf. fs. 805 to 806 of the judgment). In the same vein, regarding the construction of the building and the arrangements being made by the defendants for those purposes, the trial court also assessed other evidentiary elements: “the indications made in the following two communications regarding the truth that the construction was taking place during the investigation period, if we see this, it is substantiated in the following communications: The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the unregistered telephone service user. This call was made at 01:23:00 p.m on July 26, 2019, [Nombre 013] alias “[Nombre 124]/[Nombre 124]” received a call from an Identified Subject as “[Nombre 343]”, from which the following can be extracted: [Nombre 004] said -hello, [Nombre 343] said -hello, [Nombre 004] said -hey [Nombre 343], hello, [Nombre 343] said -hello, [Nombre 004] said -hey [Nombre 343], [Nombre 343] said -hey it's my bro, [Nombre 004] said -pura vida, [Nombre 343] said where are you, [Nombre 004] said -man, I'm far away dude, [Nombre 343] said aaah, there's the “Patrón”, right, [Nombre 004] said -same, yeah, I'm far away with me too dude, [Nombre 343] said -aaaah okay okay, [Nombre 004] said -what did you need, [Nombre 343] said -no, it's just that, just tell him that the engineer already called me that he already has the, the package printed that he told me about, [Nombre 004] said -uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, [Nombre 343] said -the thing about the plans, [Nombre 004] said -the plans yeah, [Nombre 343] said -yeah, so just that, well just that, just go pick them up, right, [Nombre 004] said -oh well it's just that we're around right now, [Nombre 343] said -oh no no no, but it can be later on, I'm just calling him so he knows and so that, so that, so he remembers that they're, they're a hundred, [Nombre 004] said -a hundred, [Nombre 343] said -uh-huh, [Nombre 004] said -alright I'll tell him right away, [Nombre 343] said -okay daddy, [Nombre 004] said -thanks [Nombre 343], [Nombre 343] said well, ok. Communication ends. Next, the following communication: From the tapped telephone line. Call identified with sequence number 0339672. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 196]. This call was made at 10:56:48 a.m on September 18, 2019. [Nombre 007] alias “[Nombre 109]” made a call to a Female identified as [Nombre 344], from which the following can be extracted: Nothing of interest until minute 00:01:23, [Nombre 007] said -hey sis, now in these days God willing I'm starting work already, [Nombre 344] said -where, [Nombre 007] said -with my brother-in-law with [Nombre 342], [Nombre 344] said -mmjuu, [Nombre 007] said -yeah, [Nombre 344] said -mmm okay, it's about time, [Nombre 007] said -yeah I'm going to start working and stuff, [Nombre 344] said -where are you going to start working, [Nombre 007] said -up here, there by the “Power” at a house they're going to build there belonging to that guy “[Nombre 153]”, [Nombre 344] said -aah okay okay, Nothing more of interest until minute 00:02:25, [Nombre 007] said -I better work there and stuff, I know that guy [Nombre 002] with that guy is going to have more work and [Nombre 002] is going to keep taking me along, [Nombre 344] said -yeah, [Nombre 007] said -and I'm going to start making money steadily. Nothing more of interest. Communication ends.\n\nAs we can see from these communications, it is clearly established that [Nombre 001] was indeed the one who built that dwelling; its specifications were even verified after the raids were carried out when its interior was described, and it is worth noting that high amounts for materials in the construction were established, due to the luxury and design of the internal infrastructure, but also it coincides with a communication from the absent accused [Nombre 161], who was hiring a crane to lift a jacuzzi to one of the dwelling's floors and provides the address of the house, which is so reflected in communication sequence number 0010126 (see Volume XVI, folio 5333 verso of the transcript file); all of which has only one reasonable explanation, which was that [Nombre 001] maintained a significant flow of money to invest in that construction, requiring the service of an engineering professional for the preparation of the dwelling's blueprints, and this is also added to sequence 0339672, where [Nombre 007] alias “[Nombre 109]” made the reference that he was going to work on a house they are going to build there belonging to that guy “[Nombre 153]”, as [Nombre 001] was identified» [sic] (cf. folios 806 to 808 of the judgment). The trial court also considered that the accused himself, in the statement he gave during the trial —which is as much a means of defense as an element of proof—, accepted that the dwelling was his, which only reinforces the conclusion that had already been built with the prosecution's evidence, regarding the ownership of the property. The accused tried to justify that the construction was carried out with lawful capital or at least funds not derived from drug trafficking, which was duly ruled out by the trial court, because —as indicated— his economic profile does not justify the construction of a property of those characteristics and with a value exceeding half a million dollars: «Finally, due to all the previously indicated reasons, the court verified the high economic value of said dwelling, which is reflected through the appraisal expert report from the Forensic Engineering Department of the Judicial Investigation Agency, which was documented through Report DCF:2020-0745ING, visible on folios 3043 to 3066 of Volume VI of the Investigation file, with it being established that the aforementioned dwelling had a value of (501, 996,130.78) million colones, with the expert mentioning that this value was obtained regarding the value of the works at market value, as well as using as reference the \"Manual de Valores Base Unitarios por Tipología Constructiva\" from the year 2021, published by the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica, ONT), of the Directorate General of Taxation of the Ministry of Finance, where the New Replacement Value (Valor de Reposición Nuevo, VRN) is initially determined, to subsequently carry out the corresponding studies of the useful life of each structure and other data of interest to obtain the Net Replacement Value (Valor Neto de Reposición, VNR) of said structures» (cf.\n\nfolio 808 of the judgment). Based on all the information that has been compiled, this Chamber agrees with the a quo, in the sense that the prosecution's evidence effectively allowed for determining that the accused [Nombre 001] built that dwelling with money derived from the illicit activity of drug trafficking that he was also engaged in, therefore validly taking Fact 5.1 of the accusation as proven. Furthermore, the judgment states: «the amount of the value of that building is more than 501 million colones, an amount of money that has no logical explanation within a development scheme of a person, who as we have been indicating has no lawful financial backing, such as to establish that he could draw upon resources for the construction of a dwelling of that value; we are not in the presence of someone who maintains a solid company or is a high-level salaried employee, because without the court needing to indicate beyond the technical evidence, the truth is that the rules of logic and experience give us a parameter of reasonableness to understand that a person who has the capacity to develop a housing project of that level is because they acquire large amounts of money, money that they are investing in a luxurious house and whose sole purpose is to allow themselves to clean the flow of said resources and now give it the appearance of being lawful, because they have legitimized that capital and have placed it into the commercial activities of society» [sic] (cf. folio 814 of the judgment). Regarding facts 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10, this Chamber observes that they all share a common denominator, which is the accused [Nombre 030]. The evidence produced in the adversarial proceedings allowed the trial court to establish that said subject recruited third parties to register assets of the criminal organization in their names. The correct determination of the criminal responsibility of that defendant, concerning the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), was corroborated by this Chamber when hearing the second ground of the material defense and the fourth ground of the technical defense of the appeals filed in his favor —for greater breadth, refer to said section of the ruling—. The judgment took as established that the relationship between [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 001] dates back at least to the year 2014, since in that year the former was detained for the crime of illicit possession of a permitted weapon, an occasion on which he was accompanied by [Nombre 001]. Additionally, the examination of the evidence allowed verification that [Nombre 030] was one of [Nombre 001]'s subordinates, since he participated in the security protocol that the organization's members developed around him. Specifically, he was located accompanying [Nombre 001] when he visited his romantic partner at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center, as documented on June 29, 2018, and May 29, 2019. On this last occasion, [Nombre 030] was driving the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado T, license plate [Valor 065] —this detail will be relevant further on—. Also, from sequence 04900430, at 10:05 hours, on October 2, 2019, the degree of trust existing between the subjects was verified, since in that communication [Nombre 001] called [Nombre 030] to ask him to help move him from the site where he was, due to the police presence. In that record, the servility of [Nombre 030] was clear, who upon [Nombre 001]'s call hurried to justify that they had agreed to see each other later and then offered to coordinate with a third party to provide him help. That dynamic is consistent with another event reflected in the judgment, which occurred on December 8, 2019, precisely at 17:30, when [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], and [Nombre 022] were at the Monge store business, located in the vicinity of the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales, a site where they suffered an attempt on their lives. As a relevant detail about the event, it stands out that [Nombre 030], when approached by judicial authorities, concealed the identity of [Nombre 001], who left the site after what happened and before the scene was attended. [Nombre 030] only stated that there was another person, his employee, without identifying them, which reveals his purpose of not linking [Nombre 001] to the event and thus ensuring his anonymity, as part of the protection measures developed by the organization in favor of its leader. The latter's identity was determined from the review of the surveillance camera recordings of the place carried out by the judicial police, in which he was observed together with the other two defendants. These are only some of the elements taken into consideration to corroborate a clear relationship between the subjects and the hierarchy of [Nombre 001]. As has been indicated, the members of the criminal structure carried out a whole series of acts of service in favor of [Nombre 001], including providing him personal security, protecting him from being approached by judicial authorities, and ensuring he left no trace of his actions, dynamics in which [Nombre 030] was seen involved. Now, from the evidence produced in the adversarial proceedings, the trial court established that [Nombre 030] was one of the people tasked with finding third parties to register assets of the criminal organization in their names. Additionally, he was responsible for obtaining vehicles for the gang, ensuring their maintenance, and even sought to equip them with security devices, while, as a result of the telephone interventions, it was established that there were coordinations to import armored equipment that would be installed in a vehicle, whose purchase required the authorization of [Nombre 001] —in that sense sequences 3026360, 05583055, 04499697— (cf. folios 751 to 755 of the judgment). All this information is relevant, because the facts described in points 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10 share common features and therefore cannot be assessed separately as the defense intends. It can be seen that in all of them, third parties acquired vehicles that were related to the organization and specifically to [Nombre 001]: regarding vehicle [Valor 125], its use by [Nombre 001] was corroborated, as he was traveling in it on December 3, 2019, when he was approached by the administrative police —cf. folios 803 to 804, 841, 847 to 848 of the judgment—; while vehicle [Valor 024], license plate [Valor 167], and the motorcycle license plate [Valor 168] were located at the dwelling located at [...], linked to said accused, which is referred to in Fact 5.1 of the proven facts and that [Nombre 001] himself admitted in trial belonged to him. All have a similar manner of acquisition, through third parties, who in turn are connected to [Nombre 030], who, as already indicated, was in charge of finding figureheads (testaferros) in order to register assets of the organization in their names. The persons who appear as registered owners do not have an economic profile that justifies the acquisition of those assets. The vehicle models are consistent with those used by the criminal organization during the investigation period and the activities it carried out.\n\nA significant number of vehicles, particularly the Land Cruiser model, were identified: the two already indicated with license plate [Valor 125] and [Valor 177]; the motor vehicle with license plate [Valor 178]—linked to [Nombre 046], which will be referred to later—and the [Valor 070], in which [Nombre 030] was seen on May 29, 2019. A vehicle of this same model with license plate [Valor 179] was located at the residence of [Nombre 030] during the raids carried out in this case. It was also documented that a vehicle of this same style was registered in the name of [Nombre 033]—spouse of [Nombre 030]—during the investigation period; however, the defendant was acquitted due to lack of charges. It was also clearly established that the gang used motorcycles for the escorts of [Nombre 001] when traveling on public roads; hence, the discovery of this type of vehicle in the possession of the accused is logical and reasonable. With respect to the vehicle with license plate [Valor 167], it can likewise be linked to the organization's own dynamics, since it had armor-type security devices, which corresponds to the negotiations for equipment of that nature carried out by [Nombre 030]. With respect to the Toyota, Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style vehicle, license plate [Valor 125], it follows from the judgment, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was acquired by [Nombre 030], with the collaboration of [Nombre 019], for which cash payments of $24,000,000 were made—of which $6,000 were contributed by [Nombre 030]—, proceeds from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal organization investigated in this case. The reconstruction of this event, as well as the relationship between [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 001], was reflected by the *a quo* in the sections of the judgment called \"Regarding [Nombre 030] and the acts of drug trafficking\" (cf. fs. 724 to 768 of the judgment) and \"Facts related to [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 019]\" (cf. fs. 834 to 860 of the judgment). Extensive reference was made to this aspect of the trial court's ruling by this Chamber—as already indicated—when hearing the second ground of the material defense and the fourth ground of the technical defense of [Nombre 030], which made it possible to determine that the conclusions of the *a quo* are correct and duly supported. It is important to note that, with the accused persons detained for this case, the vehicle was transferred to a third party, which demonstrates the manifest intention to hide its trail from the authorities. In the case of the Toyota, Land Cruiser Prado style vehicle, license plate [Valor 177], registered in the name of the legal entity *Vanguard Cleaning RC S.A*, it was established in the judgment that its legal representative is [Nombre 246], who also appears in that same capacity in the legal entity Emsevipri empresa de seguridad y vigilancia privada S.A., whose president is [Nombre 329], brother of [Nombre 033], spouse of [Nombre 030], thus again there is a clear connection with this last individual. The judgment states that, based on expert evidence, it was concluded that this company does not register economic activities with the Dirección General de Tributación of the Ministerio de Hacienda, even though its registration in the Registro Nacional indicated it was intended for industry, livestock, agriculture, tourism, service provision, and the export and import of all kinds of products. For their part, the Mitsubishi, Sportero style vehicle, license plate [Valor 167], as well as the Yamaha motorcycle, model WR450F, with license plate [Valor 168], were registered in the name of [Nombre 236], who has a child in common with a person identified as [Nombre 330], who, in turn, had registered in their name the vehicle with license plate [Valor 053], whose acquisition was attributed to [Nombre 030]—however, this aspect did not form part of the proven facts of the judgment because the date of acquisition of the asset dates back to 2016—, thus, once again, there is a clear connection with [Nombre 030]. The evidence revealed that said woman does not have any type of driver's license and does not register economic activities that justify the acquisition of these high-value assets, which were obtained in a period of less than two months, the first valued at ₡23,462,250.00 and the motorcycle at a cost of $12,900, which, it is worth noting, was paid in cash. It is reiterated that the Mitsubishi vehicle had installed armor-type security devices, which are equally expensive and coincide with actions carried out by [Nombre 030] to search for this type of equipment. As can be observed, the acquisition of all these assets has the same points of confluence, the possibility of linking [Nombre 030] in the acquisition stage and [Nombre 001] with their use and possession, so this Chamber finds no errors in the derivation made by the *a quo*, regarding that they were assets obtained by front persons (testaferros), but that their true owner was always [Nombre 001]. Regarding the claims made concerning [Nombre 236] and [Nombre 246], it is important to clarify that the Ministerio Público did not include them among the persons charged in this case, but rather opted to prosecute them separately. While it is true that, as stated by the defense in its appeal, the testimonies of pieces indicated in the indictment against those persons were non-existent at the time of issuance of the judgment, it is up to the Ministerio Público to decide the manner and timing of prosecuting them. For the purposes of the case at hand, it was possible to prove that they were not the true owners of the assets, which were actually held by [Nombre 001]. Hence, said persons could not claim any right over them, as they do not have the status of good-faith third parties. The existence of fraud (dolo), ignorance, deception, or any other circumstance that may have mediated in the registration of those assets in their name must be determined by the Ministerio Público, as it is the entity that holds the exercise of criminal action. What is relevant, as already stated, is that, for the purposes of this proceeding, the information set forth in the judgment is sufficient to determine that the true owner of the assets was [Nombre 001]. In addition to everything that has been indicated, as a relevant fact, it is recalled that when substantiating the criminal responsibility of [Nombre 030], the *a quo* recorded the communication with sequence number 0205741, from 20:26 hours on July 17, 2019, in which [Nombre 001] speaks with a third party, identified as \"[Nombre 234]\", with whom they held the following dialogue: \"[Nombre 234] said -Hello, [Nombre 001] said -go ahead, [Nombre 234] said -eeeh ok, it's done, we're missing the, the, to see if we can talk to “[Nombre 235]”, he says, what's his name “[Nombre 241]”, [Nombre 001] said -the fat guy, the fat guy, [Nombre 234] said -well the fat guy, yeah to see if we can talk to him, the, the, the girl, the chick, already sent me the accounts right, I asked her to also send me the husband's, [Nombre 001] said -yes, yes, yes, [Nombre 234] said -**we have ten people, adults, right, [Nombre 001] said -yes, but** **let's talk better in person, when, [Nombre 234] said -ready, eeh eeh, you** **tell me, [Nombre 001] said -well I'll call you right now, let's see if I can I'll call you right now, at** **any time, [Nombre 234] said -ready, ready, ready, [Nombre 001] said -okay.**\n\nEnd of communication» [sic] (Emphasis added). The person identified during the investigation by the aliases «[Nombre 241]», «[Nombre 241]» and «[Nombre 241]», was precisely [Nombre 030], so it is no coincidence that the subject «[Nombre 234]» asked [Nombre 001] about him and, furthermore, indicated that he had found him 10 adults. The objective of seeking those people was not made explicit in the communication, because [Nombre 001] interrupted the subject and asked him to speak in person, however it is consistent with the dynamics reconstructed in the judgment, in which [Nombre 030] was linked to the recruitment of front men (testaferros) to register assets of the organization led by [Nombre 001]. The trial court rightly pointed out that the fact that the assets do not appear in the name of the defendant «is one more sign that in this way he avoided the pursuit of the authorities as has been detailed in this judgment» [sic] (cf. p. 830 of the judgment), with which this Chamber agrees, because it was possible to establish that the subject maintained secrecy in his actions and tried not to leave a trace of his activities, so that the use of front men for the registration of his assets is part of that way of proceeding. A different situation arises with the vehicle with license plate [Valor 178], referred to in fact 5.14 and which, according to the prosecutorial imputation, was acquired by [Nombre 046], alias «[Nombre 252]». The judgment states that, based on the evidence adduced, it was proven that the vehicle was acquired by said defendant, he made cash payments and the asset was registered in his name. It is also detailed that ([Nombre 046]) was one of the most active members of the criminal organization, regarding drug trafficking activity. Regarding the use given to the asset, the trial ruling describes several events in which the motor vehicle was detected during the investigation stage. In the month of March 2019, it was approached by the judicial police when it was being driven by [Nombre 046], who was accompanied by [Nombre 010] and a third party named [Nombre 096], in an event that the judicial police linked to a contract killing (sicariato). Subsequently, on October 9, 2020, it was detected at a police checkpoint and was again being driven by alias «[Nombre 252]». In other sections of the trial ruling, reference is made to other times when the vehicle was located, among them March 25, 2019, in Ciudadela León XIII. On that date, [Nombre 046] was seen driving the vehicle when he was heading to the home of [Nombre 161], alias «[Nombre 083]» (cf. pp. 565 to 566 of the judgment). On June 3, 2019, in San José, Tibás, León XIII, Garabito, in front of the Catholic church (north side), the vehicle was observed on the public road and in the vicinity of ([Nombre 046]) (cf. p. 566 of the judgment). On June 23, 2019, the judicial police documented a social activity of the members of the organization in the Club Alianza sector, in La Garita de Alajuela, an occasion on which [Nombre 046] appeared at the site aboard the motor vehicle of interest (cf. p. 571 of the judgment). From the foregoing, what is actually derived is that, in addition to appearing as the registered owner, the vehicle was under the possession and use of [Nombre 046], so it is feasible to understand that he was its legitimate owner. The foregoing is completely consistent with what was concluded by the court of origin (a quo) regarding the intervention of this subject in the criminal activities carried out by the organization, since it placed him as a mid-level commander, hence it is feasible that he also acquired a high-value vehicle for his own use and enjoyment: «alias [Nombre 252] maintained a hierarchical position since he is directly in charge of the storage, transportation and distribution of drug shipments, which was corroborated when on the day of the raid on his home, evidence linked to the criminal structure was located, among them firearms, bulletproof vests, and near that home in a Toyota Hilux-style vehicle, license plates [Valor 030], specifically it was in the sector of Ciudadela León Trece, alameda 04 norte, with the key to the motor vehicle being kept inside the raided property, hence upon conducting the review of the vehicle according to seizure report number 0076215, four transparent bags containing marijuana were found, in addition to two sheets of a procedure form in the name of [Nombre 046], from the Compañía Nacional Fuerza y Luz S.A» (cf. pp. 1040 to 1041 of the judgment). No direct link was made between that motor vehicle and [Nombre 001], other than it being used in some of his transfers to the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center, which is part of the organization's dynamics, but which does not determine that the former was its legitimate owner and that ([Nombre 046]) was another front man. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that fact 5.14 cannot be attributed to [Nombre 001]. The defense alleges a violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment; however, it makes its argument based on the premise that the accused facts were not proven. As indicated when analyzing the grounds related to drug trafficking, had that circumstance occurred, the defect would not be a lack of correlation between what was accused and what was proven, but specifically a matter of evidentiary assessment. The facts that the trial court deemed proven are identical to those accused by the prosecutorial representation, the only difference is that some were left out, but at least the points mentioned by the defense, 5.1, 5.4, 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10, retain the same wording with which they were imputed. Let us remember that the lack of correlation between proven and accused facts occurs when the judgment includes novel or surprising facts or circumstances that exceed the original imputation, regarding which the accused person did not have the opportunity to exercise an effective defense. It is reiterated that the production of evidence allowed for the reconstruction of a significant number of events in which the defendants were involved, such as, for example, the activity they had at a social club in the La Garita de Alajuela sector, which does not imply that a conviction was handed down for them. Illustrating the behavior of the defendants was highly relevant to understanding their dynamics and the leadership role of [Nombre 001] regarding the other members of the structure. What has been described corresponds to an exercise inherent to the production of evidence. The core of the imputation, which alludes to the money laundering (legitimación de capitales) by [Nombre 001], was not exceeded and therefore the occurrence of the defect of lack of correlation between accusation and judgment, as claimed, is not verified. It is not true that the accusation did not attribute any of the typical drug trafficking conducts to [Nombre 001]. Fact 5 of the accusation expressly states that the defendants, among them [Nombre 001]: «carried out actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement and rights over different assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the activity of national drug trafficking carried out».\n\nSubsequently, the remaining points of section 5 specify what those actions carried out by the defendant were, which included the construction of the dwelling mentioned in point 5.1, as well as the use of front men in collaboration with [Nombre 030], for the acquisition of the vehicles mentioned in subsections 5.6, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10; therefore, there is no defect in the charges. The information set forth in the accusation was sufficiently clear, regarding circumstances of time, place, and manner, for the accused to understand the charges and be able to rebut them. What the appellant seeks is for each of the points to be treated separately from the others, but the truth is that the accusation, and in that same sense the judgment, follow a logic that requires analyzing them as a unit. The defense seems to understand that the only way to prove that the dwelling described in point 5.1 of the accusation was built with money from drug trafficking is with direct evidence showing deposits, transactions, or payments to third parties by the defendant. It is recalled that our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence, which allows facts to be proven by any lawful means of evidence. In this case, from the joint analysis of the circumstantial evidence, it was correctly derived that the dwelling was built with capital provided by [Nombre 001], which was ratified by the accused himself through his statement at trial. The absence of direct evidence on this point, besides being expected, is logical in a case like this, where the accused persons had already become professionalized in the actions they carried out to hide the trail of the money they obtained from drug trafficking, as an example of this being the activities developed by [Nombre 029] and his wife to exchange foreign currency in small amounts through third parties, so it is not strange that the accused, and particularly [Nombre 001], took measures to avoid being linked to the money used to carry out the construction. In any case, this is the defendant's modus operandi, with stealth and taking care of his movements to avoid leaving a trail or connection to the illicit activities, as corroborated by the investigation; hence, the circumstantial evidence considered by the *a quo* acquires true value and relevance, according to which the capital with which the structure was erected was supplied by [Nombre 001] and originated from the drug trafficking activity he was engaged in. The appellant questions that the trial court indicated erroneous information, that the dwelling affected several properties, as he maintains that it only covers a single lot. However, this circumstance was correctly reconstructed by the *a quo*, based on the documentary and expert evidence presented at trial. The witness [Nombre 092] stated in this regard: \"*the dwelling where [Nombre 001] reported was at Alameda 1, Ciudadela León 13, a mustard-colored corner house at that time number 30; that dwelling, from the beginning of the case until its conclusion, we were able to document all the modifications it underwent and the permanence and use by [Nombre 001]; the changes; initially the dwelling was relatively small visually; as the case developed, they were building up floors and stories until reaching 5 floors, covering a larger space than what could initially be documented; registry-wise, I do not have the data on how many lots it covered*\" (cf. f. 801 of the judgment), a statement that corresponds with the expert evidence presented at trial: \"*the court verified the high economic value of said dwelling, which is reflected through the appraisal expertise of the Forensic Engineering Department of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), which was documented through Expert Report DCF:2020-0745-ING, visible on folios 3043 to 3066 of Volume VI of the Investigation file, establishing that the aforementioned dwelling had a value of (501,996,130.78) million colones; the expert mentions that this value was obtained regarding the market value of the works, and the 'Manual de Valores Base Unitarios por Tipología Constructiva' for the year 2021, published by the Technical Standards Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica, ONT) of the General Directorate of Taxation (Dirección General de Tributación) of the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda), was also used as a reference, where the Replacement Value New (VRN) is initially determined, to subsequently carry out the corresponding studies of the useful life of each structure and other data of interest to obtain the Net Replacement Value (VNR) of said structures; furthermore, it was established in said expert report that, in effect, as mentioned previously in this judgment, the constructed structure not only comprises the property with Cadastral Map No. [Valor 019], but also four more properties, which present the following cadastral maps: [Valor 020], [Valor 021], [Valor 022], and [Valor 023], which reaffirms the court's analysis that ultimately it is not as ([Nombre 001]) wanted to portray it in his statement during the debate, when he said that the construction had been erected only on his mother's lot or property; in that sense, unlike what the criminal leader indicated, the construction of the dwelling was publicly and notoriously occurring on those properties*\" (cf. fs. 808 to 809 of the judgment). From the preceding excerpt, it follows then that the value of the property was determined not only by the characteristics of the structure, but also that the number of lots or properties it covered was considered, which are not limited to just one as the defendant tried to portray at trial. The defense considers that the fact that the registered owners of the other affected properties were not called to testify was an impediment to consider the facts proven. It is reiterated that our system is not one of fixed evidentiary value, but is based on the freedom of evidence, so it is not imperative to have specific evidentiary elements to prove a fact. In this case, the evidence was clear and conclusive regarding the form and place where the construction was carried out. The fact that the registered owners were not called could only affect the forfeiture (comiso) order —to which reference will be made later— but not the accreditation of the crime. As occurred with the facts related to drug trafficking, the defense sought direct evidence proving the existence of an instruction or order from [Nombre 001] to [Nombre 030], for the latter to look for front men in whose names to register movable property. However, as has been extensively stated, a criminal organization, just like a lawful company, functions through the establishment of general roles and mandates, so that the members of the group operate under the protection of those generic instructions, making it unnecessary to verify a specific instruction prior to each of the actions carried out by the group members in fulfillment of the delegated function or functions. The contrary would obstruct the structure, eliminating its fluidity and functionality. In this case, the joint analysis of the circumstances allows deriving that conclusion, given the submission and servility of the other members of the criminal organization toward [Nombre 001], among them [Nombre 030], so direct evidence of those instructions is not imperative. Even the communication that [Nombre 001] had with the subject identified as “[Nombre 234]” —sequence 0205741, at 20:26 hours on July 17, 2019— is reiterated, in which the latter required coordination with [Nombre 030], because he had found 10 adults, which, in the context in which it occurred and given the behavior of the defendants, is consistent with the function of recruiting front men for the organization. Continuing with the defense's complaints, the fact that witness [Nombre 225] made no reference to transfers or payments to third parties for the acquisition of the goods held by the accused in no way diminishes the conclusions reached by the *a quo*. The defense insists on the need for direct evidence to prove the facts. It is reiterated that, in a case such as the one before us, evidence of that nature is not required, since part of the care the accused put into practice was to erase all traces of actions that could bring him liability. In that sense, it is not reasonable to expect deposits in his name destined for the front men to be located. Circumstantial evidence, which in this case was sufficient, is what allows overcoming the absence of direct evidentiary elements and is what has made it possible to derive, as the only possible conclusion, that the money used for the acquisition of the goods came from [Nombre 001], as a result of the drug trafficking activity he carried out. The defense also questions that the testimony of the prosecutor's expert, Elizabeth Cristina Segura González, an official of the Money Laundering Section (Sección de Legitimación de Capitales) of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), was not taken into consideration; she, according to the appellant, indicated that his client was not of interest to the investigation. This circumstance does not diminish the analysis carried out by the *a quo*. The deponent prepared the first amplification of police report 10-SLCR-22-CPA-15-21, and at the beginning of her statement, she indicated that her role consisted of the following: \"*I carried out the analysis after the search and seizure of several files on asset acquisition; the prosecutor's office requested the collection of private information on several assets in order to determine how and by whom they were acquired; the private information consists of different files from vehicle sales agencies where vehicles that were seized during the search or that were of interest to the investigation were acquired*\" (cf. f. 179 of the judgment). Taking into account that the movable property was acquired by third parties and that [Nombre 001] did not appear as the registered owner of any of them, it is logical and expected that he would not be a person of interest to the expert, given the specific study she was assigned.\n\nTherefore, her statements in the hearing in that regard, resulting from the interrogation to which she was subjected, do not alter the conclusions reached by the trial court. Finally, it only remains to be noted that the majority of this Chamber does not share the conclusion of the *a quo*, regarding the order for the forfeiture (comiso) of the dwelling described in point 5.1 of the proven facts that affects properties numbers [Valor 140], [Valor 016], [Valor 141] and [Valor 142], as it was issued without notifying the persons who appear as registered owners of those lands. The mother of the accused, who is the registered owner of property [Valor 140], must be excluded from this obligation to provide notification, however, because as the judgment established, she was fully aware of the criminal activity carried out by her son and, therefore, the origin of the money with which the dwelling was built, such that her status as a good-faith third party is ruled out. The judgment states: \"the built structure not only comprises the property with Cadastral Plan No. [Valor 019], but also four more properties, which present the following cadastral plans: [Valor 020], [Valor 021], [Valor 022] and [Valor 023], which is ultimately completely contrary to what was stated by ([Nombre 001]) in her statement during the hearing, when she mentioned that this construction had been erected solely on her mother's lot or property. This detail is important for the court based on respect for what is established in articles 93 and 94 of Law 8204, regarding good-faith third parties; however, in this case it is completely clear, besides being public and notorious, that on these properties, a building of great dimensions was being erected, the publicity of which was, for the court, very notorious such that a third-party person, owner thereof, would not file the respective claims to enforce their property rights, especially given that it was definitively a place where, due to its location, it was public knowledge of the neighbors that [Nombre 001] resided, and in the same communications already analyzed, it was established that said dwelling remained in his use. Therefore, despite those third parties not having appeared in the process to make their claim as good-faith third parties, the court also does not observe that they were unaware, without negligence, of the illegal use of these goods, and if they had knowledge, they have not expressed their opposition to that use, and finally, it is not observed that these third parties have, in a reasonable manner, prevented the illegal use of the goods in the hands of [Nombre 001]\" [sic] (cf. pp. 1014 to 1015 of the judgment). Although it is true that the construction of the building was public and notorious, it is no less true that the persons who appear as owners of the affected properties were not given the opportunity to comment on the reasons why they remain in that condition, despite there being a building on those properties. And as the trial court's ruling states, the properties \"have maintained a genesis of acquisition as a product of social good, and therefore were acquired through state social aid entities for the most needy people in our society\" (cf. p. 1007 of the judgment), which makes it evident that their registered owners are persons to whom the State gave those properties due to presenting conditions of vulnerability that cannot be overlooked. The foregoing necessitates giving them the possibility to appear in the process, so they may exercise their defense —if applicable— regarding the affected real estate. It must be remembered that the forfeiture (comiso) cannot be ordered without taking good-faith third parties into consideration, as indicated by article 110 of the Penal Code: \"The crime produces the loss, in favor of the State, of the instruments with which it was committed and of the things or values derived from its perpetration, or that constitute for the agent a profit derived from the crime itself, except for the right that the victim or third parties may have over them\" and article 93 of Law No. 8204 \"The measures and sanctions referred to in the preceding articles of this chapter shall be applied without prejudice to the rights of good-faith third parties.\" That good faith has not been ruled out in this case, because the property owners were not granted a hearing. This Chamber is completely clear that the forfeiture (comiso) of the structure is entirely appropriate, because it was established, without a doubt, that it was built with capital of illicit origin and that its legitimate owner is [Nombre 001]; however, the particularity that this building has, of affecting several properties that are in the name of third parties, is a circumstance that must necessarily be considered when ordering the forfeiture (comiso), because it implies dispossessing their registered owners of those goods. Unlike what occurs with the registered owners of the other personal property analyzed previously, regarding whom their status as front persons (testaferros) could be established, in the case of the dwelling it is unknown whether the property owners consented to the construction or whether another circumstance arose that must be protected by the State, hence the need to give them the opportunity to appear in the process. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber sua sponte annuls the forfeiture (comiso) order on the dwelling built on properties numbers [Valor 140], [Valor 016], [Valor 141] and [Valor 142] and orders a remand for a new trial (juicio de reenvío) so that the noted deficiency is corrected and proceedings are conducted in accordance with the Law. It is appropriate to point out that this way of proceeding has been upheld in different rulings by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, as can be inferred from votes no. 2017-796, of 14:40 hours on August 30, 2017: \"The competent authorities must not only be concerned with recording the existence of the case and the respective seizure in the corresponding Registry; they must call the owners of the property, if they are different from the accused -persons who, depending on the circumstances, could even appear as participants in the investigated act-, as well as the third parties who may be affected by the measure and whose rights are recorded because they are protected by registry publicity.\" In a similar vein, resolution no. 2005-1273, of 10:00 hours on November 14, 2005. The foregoing, because it has been understood that the right to a hearing is part of the due process that must be fulfilled prior to ordering a measure as burdensome as the forfeiture (comiso) of property. Based on the foregoing, by unanimous vote, the two grounds of the appeal filed by private defense counsel Luis Cubillo Pacheco on behalf of [Nombre 001] are dismissed. By majority vote, this Chamber sua sponte annuls the forfeiture (comiso) order issued on the dwelling built on properties [Valor 140], [Valor 016], [Valor 141] and [Valor 142] and orders a remand for a new trial (juicio de reenvío), so that this matter is reconsidered, after correcting the omission that has been referenced. The foregoing, by virtue of the impossibility of separately forfeiting (comisar) the building (which has been clearly established as a product of the illicit drug trade), without also including in said order the lands on which it is situated, regarding which there is a pending discussion to be resolved. On this last point, Judge Escalante Quirós issues a dissenting vote.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With marked respect, I depart from the decision of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, consisting of sua sponte annulling the forfeiture (comiso) decided by the trial court, regarding the property described in point 5.1 of the proven facts of the judgment. For the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I consider that the unanimous position of dismissing grounds one and two of the appeal filed by attorney Luis Cubillo Pacheco, on behalf of the accused [Nombre 001], should not include any type of sua sponte declaration regarding the aforementioned forfeiture (comiso). As a first argument, I hold the thesis that the annulment of a forfeiture (comiso) in the venue of a criminal sentence appeal cannot stem solely from the initiative of the judicial body. This is so because, in accordance with article 103 of the Penal Code, the forfeiture (comiso) is a civil consequence of the crime and, therefore, any decision in this regard must be based on the procedural activity or impulse of the interested civil party. In other words, without a natural or legal person who considers themselves harmed by a forfeiture (comiso) order filing an express claim before the respective Criminal Sentence Appeals Court, the sua sponte annulment is not legally possible. In this case, even though during the course of the process a prior hearing was not granted to the persons who, eventually, could have appeared to claim their rights as good-faith third parties, the truth is that there is no appeal filed before this court that challenges the forfeiture (comiso) order decided by the trial court. That is, being faced with a civil effect that results from the demonstration of two crimes – drug trafficking and subsequent money laundering (legitimación de capitales) – the inexistence of an express claim determines that, in accordance with the dispositive principle that governs in civil matters, a sua sponte annulment is not appropriate. In this regard, I consider that despite there having been no prior hearing to possible good-faith third parties, if there is also no claim whatsoever regarding the forfeiture (comiso) decided by the *a quo*, this implies that, in accordance with the aforementioned principle: \"...in the procedural sphere, no one is forced to sue, to respond or oppose a judicial action, to file an appeal or motion, or to offer evidence if they do not want to do so.\" (judgment number 0798-2020, issued at 16:51 hours on June 23, 2020, First Court of Civil Appeals of San José). As a complement to the foregoing, and this therefore being my second argument for not sharing the sua sponte decision of the majority of this *ad quem* court, I must indicate that just as the court of merit correctly pointed out, the construction of the dwelling where the accused [Nombre 001] lived was of such a scale that it reasonably took a lot of time and was undoubtedly a work of public and widespread knowledge in the León XIII neighborhood, as it is known that said community is characterized by its small houses of modest presentation, since it is a marginal urban area of the canton of Tibás in San José. That being the case, if in the midst of that social, economic, and architectural reality, the construction of a dwelling that stood out notably in its horizontal and vertical dimensions began and developed, covering four lots and totaling five floors, it is valid to affirm that the natural persons who are registered owners of those parcels knew of the construction and, for some reason, consented to it.\n\nIn this regard, the judgment stated: “…in this case it is completely clear, besides being public and notorious, that on those properties, a large-scale building was being erected, whose publicity for the court was so notorious that a third person, owner of the same, would not have failed to make the respective claims to assert their ownership rights, especially since it was ultimately a place that, due to its location, was public knowledge among neighbors that [Name 001] resided there, and in the communications already analyzed, it was established that said dwelling continued to be in use by the same, so that even though those third parties have not appeared in the proceeding to make their claim as good-faith third parties, neither does the court observe that they were unaware, without negligence, of the illegal use of these assets, and if having knowledge, they have not expressed their opposition to that use, and finally, it is not observed that these third parties reasonably prevented the illegal use of the assets in the hands of [Name 001], for which reason the court has absolute certainty that said real properties were used to cement the building of [Name 001], and before this, what is ordered, and is in accordance with the evidence, is the forfeiture (comiso) of the real property located in [...], located on the following properties and plans, registration [Value 014], [Value 014], [Value 015], [Value 209], [Value 017] and [Value 018], plans [Value 019], [Value 020], [Value 021], [Value 022] and [Value 176] in favor of the Costa Rican Drug Institute.” (cfr. judgment, folio 1014). Consequently, I agree with the first-instance judging panel, in the sense that if no person reported the usurpation of their land, nor objected even when [Name 001] was arrested, nor requested help from police or judicial authorities, and clearly has not claimed within this criminal proceeding, it is valid to infer that they are not good-faith third parties ignorant of what happened with the lots; hence, if from their evident inaction over several years it is deduced that they did consent that [Name 001] build a large house, certainly there were no grounds for the criminal court to deny the forfeiture, it having been proven with certainty that this real property was built with money derived from drug trafficking. Therefore, by virtue of the arguments presented, above all due to the non-existence of an express claim that, in accordance with the theory of own acts applicable to matters of a patrimonial nature, would give applicability to the principle of party presentation, I separate myself from the decision of the majority of this court, and I consider that it is not viable to ex officio annul the forfeiture of the cited real property.-\n\nXXXIX. First ground of the appeal filed by René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, in his capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact of [Name 331]. He claims “Violation of procedural law due to illegal reasoning and violation of Due Process. Concomitant protest for defective procedural activity of an absolute nature in the proceeding, producing the ineffectiveness of the judgment in the declaration and order of forfeiture (comiso) of assets of a deceased defendant not tried in the criminal proceeding” [sic]. He cites articles 1, 142, 175, 178, 184, 200, 367, 458, 459, 489, 490 and following of the Criminal Procedural Code; 520, 521, 547, 541, 548, 572 of the Civil Code; 103 subsection 3) and 110 of the Criminal Code; 58, 69, 77 and 83 of Law No. 8204. He states that [Name 046] was a defendant in this case, but died on December 2, 2022, so he did not have that status when the trial was held. He details that, despite being deceased, he was tried, his authorship and guilt for the accused acts were declared; furthermore, the forfeiture (comiso) of the assets of his property was ordered, and the only thing omitted was the imposition of a penalty. He argues that the definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) that should have been issued as a result of his death was not resolved. He partially transcribes the judgment, then states that after establishing the criminal liability of the deceased [Name 046], the forfeiture (comiso) of the assets seized from him as a defendant was ordered, in accordance with article 83 of Law No. 8204. He argues that, by virtue of the fact that [Name 046] died, no effect can be generated from the acts imputed to him, because the criminal action is extinguished, which should have been established in the judgment of definitive dismissal. He considers that the ordered forfeiture (comiso) is illegal. He states that the reasoning is illegal and violates due process because it is illegitimate and improper to declare the illicit nature of the assets seized from the now deceased, given that the fate of these should have been defined in the judgment of definitive dismissal and not in a condemnatory sentence issued in a trial of which he was not a part. He claims that the judgment attributed authorship, commission, and guilt for the acts to him, despite his death, through an illogical and illegal assessment that led to the loss of the assets through forfeiture (comiso). He considers that the assets must return to the heirs, as the guilt of the deceased ancestor (causante) and the origin of the assets cannot be demonstrated. He reiterates that the extinction of the criminal action due to death meant that the forfeiture (comiso) could only be analyzed and assessed through the judgment of definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) that should have been issued, and not in the judgment derived from a trial. He considers that the right of inheritance was violated, due to the lack of defense for the effects seized from the deceased. He claims that the right of defense, hearing, evidence, and private property of the heirs of the ancestor (causante) over all the seized assets was violated. He emphasizes that since it is not possible to try the defendant in criminal proceedings due to his death, the seized assets cannot be disposed of. He adds that, in any case, the heirs must be informed at the time the resolution is issued, so that they can exercise their right of defense over the seized assets. He claims that there is illegitimate reasoning in the judgment, a violation of due process in the attribution of authorship and guilt for the acts to the deceased, as well as in the order of forfeiture (comiso) over the seized assets. He reiterates that it was only possible to rule on the assets in the judgment of definitive dismissal. Regarding the harm, he describes that the heir and executor of the deceased defendant was affected, because he was not a procedural party, which injured his right to property, disposition, and possession of the assets seized from the ancestor (causante). He considers that the nullity of the judgment must be declared, with respect to the order of forfeiture (comiso) of the assets, as well as in the determination of the commission, authorship, and guilt for the illicit acts attributed to [Name 046], despite having died. He requests the issuance of a judgment of definitive dismissal and that the fate of the assets be resolved.\n\nSecond ground of the appeal filed by René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, in his capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact of [Name 331]. He claims “Violation of procedural and substantive law. Disagreement due to lack of reasoning in the declaration and order of forfeiture (comiso) of assets seized from the deceased defendant [Name 046].” He indicates that the judgment held [Name 046] as the responsible author of the acts and ordered the forfeiture (comiso) of the assets that were seized from him, which he lists. He details that, in his capacity as representative of the executor and heir, he challenges the judgment to request the return and delivery of the assets, in accordance with articles 200, 490 and following of the Criminal Procedural Code; 93 and 94 of Law No. 8204; 103 and 110 of the Criminal Code. He relates that the forfeiture (comiso) of the assets seized from the ancestor (causante) was ordered, despite not being a procedural party in the trial and judgment he challenges. He reproduces a passage from the judgment, then criticizes that the only basis provided for declaring the forfeiture (comiso) was that the assets were found at [Name 046]’s domicile during the search (allanamiento) carried out, without analyzing any evidence or reasonable motive that the assets come from drug trafficking activities. He considers it possible that the assets have another provenance or were obtained in another way. He claims that the judgment does not explain why it classifies them as illicit or derived from drug trafficking, adding that it is not valid to make assumptions. He transcribes articles 200 and 490 of the Criminal Procedural Code. He argues that the defect of lack of reasoning occurs by virtue of the fact that the judgment does not explain, develop, or state reasons why the assets seized from the now deceased are necessarily illicit or derived from drug trafficking and not from another activity or origin. He indicates that the simple fact that they were found in the possession of the deceased does not allow one to establish that they are illicit and therefore can be subject to forfeiture (comiso). He argues that the judgment must establish the reason why the assets are subject to forfeiture (comiso), with its evidentiary basis, which the judgment fails to do and causes its nullity. He states that the judgment does not explain the omission or rejection of the provisions in articles 200 and 490 of the Criminal Procedural Code; 93 and 94 of Law No. 8204; 103 and 110 of the Criminal Code, meaning the reasoning is insufficient. He asserts that the judgment does not explain the reason why the return of the seized assets was not ordered. As harm, he affirms that his client was deprived of the right of property over the assets that belonged to the ancestor (causante), through an unfounded confiscatory measure. He argues that the judgment must be partially revoked, with respect to the forfeiture (comiso) of the assets, over which the succession has a right.\n\nThe appeal must be granted. Because the two grounds of appeal deal with the same subject, they are heard and resolved jointly. The general rule relating to forfeiture (comiso) is established in article 110 of the Criminal Code, according to which: “The crime produces the loss in favor of the State of the instruments with which it was committed and of the things or values deriving from its commission, or that constitute for the agent a profit derived from the same crime, without prejudice to the right that the victim or third parties may have over them. The vehicles involved in the commission of the acts defined in article 254 bis(*) of the Criminal Code are excluded from this provision.” Although the figure is located within Title VII of Part One of the Criminal Code, under the name “Civil consequences of the punishable act,” it does not really have that character, since the principle of party presentation governs in civil matters, according to which the parties have a monopoly on the proceeding, in its initiation, progression, and termination, which implies that the jurisdictional authority must be requested to intervene. For its part, forfeiture (comiso) can be declared even ex officio. Added to this is that forfeiture (comiso) lacks the compensatory, restitutive, or reparative function that characterizes the civil consequences of the crime, and it also does not require proof of harm for it to proceed. Regarding its legal nature, national doctrine states: “Costa Rican forfeiture is simply a consequence indicated by the legislator for the crime (for a certain type of crime, as stated) which, although it has criminal features (legality, burden of proof, innocence, link to the act), civil features (it proceeds against third parties), and administrative features (state coerciveness and ex officio nature), does not precisely fit any of them, and therefore, the principles characteristic of a penalty (such as guilt or temporality), of security measures (such as personality), or of reparation (such as party presentation) are not applicable to it. Hence it is valid for the legislator to regulate it for ex officio application, establishing the definitive loss of ownership, etc. However, this does not mean that, as a measure depriving rights, which it ultimately is, it is not subject to principles such as legality and proportionality that are inherent, even, in any punitive matter, including in areas of administrative law, as they are the only limiters of the State’s power of imperium [...].” (Chinchilla Calderón, Rosaura. Constitucionalidad, naturaleza jurídica y límites del comiso en Costa Rica. Revista Digital de la Maestría en Ciencias Penales, No. 5, Universidad de Costa Rica.\n\nAvailable at: https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/RDMCP). Because confiscation (comiso) falls upon the property, for it to proceed it is sufficient to determine its connection to the criminal act. This objective nature explains why it can be ordered even in cases where the criminal prosecution against the person does not succeed. Despite the foregoing, in every case a proportionality analysis of the measure must be carried out. Although Article 110 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal) —transcribed above— does not expressly provide for it, respect for due process requires that those who hold a legitimate interest (interés legítimo) in the property must be informed of the existence of the proceeding, so that they can exercise their right to defense, to be heard, and to adversarial challenge. Law No. 8204, which is of a special nature, in its article 93 does indeed contemplate a provision in that sense, namely: «The measures and sanctions referred to in the articles preceding this chapter shall be applied without prejudice to the rights of third parties in good faith. In accordance with the law, those who may claim a legitimate legal interest (interés jurídico legítimo) in the property, products, or instruments shall be notified of the possibility of appearing in the proceeding, so that they may assert their rights». Added to the above is that article 94 of the same normative body provides: «The court or competent authority shall order the return of the property, products, or instruments to the claimant, when it has been proven and concluded that: a) The claimant has a legitimate interest (interés legítimo) with respect to the property, products, or instruments. b) No type of authorship or participation in a crime of illicit trafficking or related crimes that are the object of the proceeding can be attributed to the claimant. c) The claimant was unaware, without negligence, of the illegal use of the property, products, or instruments, or when, having knowledge, did not voluntarily consent to their illegal use. d) The claimant did not acquire any right to the property, products, or instruments from the prosecuted person, under circumstances that reasonably lead to the conclusion that the right to them would have been transferred to avoid possible seizure and confiscation (comiso). e) The claimant did everything reasonable to prevent the illegal use of the property, products, or instruments». The foregoing provisions obligate the jurisdictional authority to carry out several actions prior to ordering the confiscation (comiso) of property: first, verify the existence of third parties who may be affected by the order; if they exist, confirm that they have been notified so that they can exercise their rights and, second, provide grounds in the judgment for the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the confiscation (comiso), after prior observance of the provisions of Article 94 of Law No. 8204. The jurisprudence of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), for a long time, has recognized the duty to safeguard the rights of third parties who claim a right over the property. In ruling (resolución) No. 1998-74 of 9:15 a.m. on January 23, 1998, later reiterated in No. 2017-796 of 2:40 p.m. on August 30, 2017, it was indicated: «[…] The competent authorities must not only concern themselves with noting the existence of the case and the respective seizure in the corresponding Registry; they must call the titleholders of the property, if they are different from the accused -persons who, depending on the circumstances, could even appear as participants in the investigated act-, as well as the third parties who may be affected by the measure and whose rights are recorded because they are protected by registry publicity -without prejudice to the allegations of other third parties who appear in the proceeding claiming legitimate rights or interests (derechos o intereses legítimos) in said property, the relevance of which must be analyzed in the specific case-, because the omission of this elementary procedure not only injures the rights of third parties, but also ruins the State's possibilities of confiscating (comisar) that property[…]\\\" (Highlighting does not correspond to the original). In a similar vein, vote (voto) No. 2005-1273, of 10:00 a.m. on November 14, 2005, from that same Chamber details: «In accordance with Article 110 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal): […] For its part, in accordance with Article 93 of the Law on Narcotics, those who can claim a legitimate legal interest (interés jurídico legítimo) in the property, products, or instruments used in the commission of crimes provided for in that law, or the product thereof, shall be notified of the possibility of appearing in the proceeding, so that they can assert their right. On the other hand, Article 94 contemplates that the return of the property shall be ordered, when it has been proven, in addition to the legitimate interest (interés legítimo), that participation in the crime cannot be attributed to the claimant, that they were unaware of the use of the property, or knowing of it, did not consent to it, but rather did everything reasonable to prevent the illegal use. Consequently, if these points were proven, the property should have been returned. In the present case, there is no record that the registered owner, […], nor the mortgage creditor, […] (folio 588 vto.) were notified of the seizure of the property, so that they could argue what they deemed appropriate, nor does the decision (fallo) refer to the circumstances contemplated in the mentioned Article 94. The sentence suffers from a lack of proper reasoning (fundamentación) in that regard, in addition to omitting the notifications to the interested parties. For the reasons stated, the appealed decision (fallo) is annulled solely with regard to the confiscation (comiso) of the Hyundai vehicle, license plate # […], registered in the name of […]. The referral of the case is ordered for its proper processing in that sole aspect». Finally, vote (voto) No. 200600712 stands out, of 10:45 a.m. on August 7, 2006, also from the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) in which it was indicated: «In accordance with the provisions of the text of Article 110 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal): […]. In that understanding, Article 93 of Law # 8204, on narcotics, psychotropic substances, unauthorized drugs, money laundering, and related activities, provides that those who can claim a legitimate legal interest (interés jurídico legítimo) in the property, products, or instruments used in the commission of illicit acts provided for in that law or the product thereof, shall be notified of the possibility of appearing in the proceeding, so that they may assert their rights. While Article 94 ibidem, provides for the return of the property when it has been proven - in addition to the legitimate interest (interés legítimo) - that the claimant cannot be attributed participation in the criminal event, that they were unaware of the use of the property, or knowing of it, did not consent to it, but rather did everything reasonable to prevent the illegitimate use, aspects which, once proven, would allow for the return of the property to be ordered. In the present case, it is observed ex officio, that there is not even a record that the registered owner, M (see folio 266) was notified of the seizure of the property, so that they could argue what they deemed appropriate. Consequently, the confiscation (comiso) being a consequence of the punishable act, and the Chamber observing the existence of a manifest case of defenselessness (indefensión), violating legal due process (debido proceso legal), by infringing Articles 39 and 41 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), not only to the detriment of the appellant, but also to the detriment of the registered owner, as well as an evident lack of grounds by totally omitting consideration of the aspects contemplated by Article 94 ibidem, the claim is declared with merit. The appealed sentence is annulled, solely with regard to the confiscation (comiso) of the Toyota pickup truck, Tacoma style, license plates # […], registered in the name of M. The referral of the case is ordered for its proper processing in that sole aspect». This Chamber shares the criterion expressed by the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) in the preceding pronouncements, since, by legal imperative, third parties who may have a legitimate interest (interés legítimo) in the proceeding must be notified, but, furthermore, because the right to defense and to be heard emanate from higher-ranking regulations and therefore cannot be ignored by the operators of the system in the cases brought before them. In the case before us, Mr. [Name 331], executor of the probate proceeding of [Name 046], appeared in this instance, arguing that the confiscation (comiso) order for the deceased's property was not appropriate. In this regard, the first thing that must be pointed out is that the appellant lacks the standing to challenge the merits of the matter, with respect to the resolution of the criminal aspects, but only what concerns the disposition of the property seized from the late [Name 046], so this Chamber's pronouncement is limited to that aspect. Having made this delineation, it must be pointed out that the definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) in favor of [Name 046] was ordered by the judge of the intermediate stage, in a ruling (resolución) at 09:00 a.m. on March 8, 2023 (cf. pages 4140 vto to 4143 fte). However, there is no record in the case file that, subsequently, any measure was taken aimed at informing their heirs of the possibility of appearing in the proceeding, despite the existence of a large quantity of seized property and the fact that the Public Ministry's (Ministerio Público) interest in the property seized from [Name 046] was evident. The a quo ordered the confiscation (comiso) without contemplating said deficiency, which constitutes a violation of due process that must be observed and that justifies declaring the claim with merit. However, it is necessary to add that the appellant is not correct in stating that the death of [Name 046] was an insurmountable impediment to ordering the confiscation (comiso) of the property that was seized from him. As indicated before, confiscation (comiso) is a measure that falls upon the property when one of the circumstances established in article 110 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal) is determined — instruments with which it was committed and the things or values coming from its realization, or that constitute for the agent a benefit derived from the same crime—. It clearly does not constitute an automatic effect, but rather its proportionality must be analyzed in light of the characteristics of the case. This summary proceeding (sumaria) presents the peculiarity that, according to the prosecution's theory of the case, the use of front persons was common to dilute the origin of the property, which is why registered ownership did not always coincide with the true owner, so the death of ([Name 046]) did not limit the pursuit of these by the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público). On the other hand, although the death of the accused extinguishes the criminal action against them, according to article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), there is no impediment whatsoever for the jurisdictional authority to rule on the existence of the acts in which they may have participated, when necessary for the final resolution of the matter.\n\nIn the *sub lite*, that determination was of interest, insofar as facts attributed to a criminal organization of which —according to the prosecutorial theory— ([Name 046]) formed part were adjudicated, hence this Chamber finds no irregularity in that regard. Based on the foregoing, the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by [Name 331], in his capacity as executor of the estate of [Name 046], are declared **with merit**; consequently, the forfeiture order over the assets seized from the latter is annulled, and a retrial (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation on that point, after considering the provisions of article 94 of Law No. 8204. The jurisdictional authority should take into account that the interested party has already appeared in the proceedings.\n\n **I.** **Third ground of the appeal filed by René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, in his capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact of** [Name 331]. He alleges “Violation of procedural law. Lack of reasoning of the judgment regarding the failure to order forfeiture of assets in the ‘por tanto’ section of the judgment”. He states that, in the operative part of the judgment, forfeiture of the assets was not ordered, but rather their seizure, which had already been carried out in the preparatory stage. He indicates that the foregoing circumstance, far from constituting a material error, consists of an error in the reasoning of the judgment, which must operate in favor of the accused, even though deceased. He argues that what is appropriate is what was ordered in the operative part of the judgment, in which forfeiture was not ordered. He asserts that there may be potential disciplinary or criminal liability that the judges must assume, whose actions should not be protected or justified. In the section corresponding to the grievance, he highlights that, despite the fact that forfeiture of the assets was not ordered, their definitive return was not ordered, thereby depriving him of their use and enjoyment. He requests that it be ordered that forfeiture is not ordered and, in the alternative, that the judgment be partially annulled or revoked, solely regarding the lack of reasoning with respect to the forfeiture of the assets owned by ([Name 046]), and that a retrial be ordered “without the decision of the trial court being able to be remedied and corrected as it was defined by that court”. **Ruling is omitted.** Due to the manner in which the first and second grounds of the appeal brought by [Name 331] were resolved, as it is unnecessary, ruling on the present claim is omitted. It will be in the retrial that has been ordered where the appropriateness or not of the forfeiture of the assets of his interest will be determined. \n\n **II.** **First ground of appeal brought by [Name 045].** He alleges “Violation of procedural and substantive law. Disagreement due to lack of reasoning in the declaration and forfeiture order of a vehicle”. He claims to be the legitimate registered owner of the vehicle license plate [Value 030], make Toyota, style Hilux SRV, VIN number MR0HZ8CD5H0405001, over which forfeiture was ordered in favor of the State. He details that the sole basis used to declare the forfeiture consisted of the vehicle's use to commit the investigated illicit acts, of which he has no knowledge and does not challenge, since the judgment does not link him to those activities. He asserts that the pronouncement lacks reasoning, because the forfeiture is justified by the use of the asset for the commission of crimes, but it omits setting forth the reasons why his legitimate interest as the registered owner of the asset or a good-faith third party was not considered. He adds that the reason why the vehicle was not returned to him was not justified, nor was the correlation between the use of the asset, his ownership of it, his lack of knowledge of its use in illicit activities, and the conclusion reached in the judgment. He considers that the forfeiture became a confiscatory action, because he was deprived of his property, despite having a superior right to the vehicle and not having participated in the criminal activity. He claims to be one more victim by virtue of the fact that his vehicle was used by a third party without his knowledge for illicit activities, even though he possessed it as a loan. He asserts that the judgment contains insufficient reasoning, because the reason why the return to its registered owner was approved or rejected is not explained, as indicated by articles 93 and 94 of Law No. 8204. He considers that its mere use in the commission of an illicit act is insufficient for forfeiture to be appropriate. He cites as support for his position resolution No. 2023-402, at 16:00 hours, of October 24, 2023, issued by the Criminal Sentence Appeals Tribunal of Cartago. As a grievance, he states that he was deprived of an asset of his property, through an unfounded confiscatory measure and without making known to him the reasons for which that decision was taken. He requests that the judgment be annulled with respect to the forfeiture of the vehicle of interest and that a retrial be ordered for a new substantiation. **Second ground of appeal brought by [Name 045].** He claims “Violation of procedural law and due process, and concomitant protest of defective procedural activity of a relative nature”. He indicates that, being the registered owner of the vehicle license plate [Value 030], he is legitimized to request its return, since he does not appear as a defendant in the summary proceedings. He transcribes a passage from the questioned judgment and points out that “it is noted as a common grievance the retention of assets not only of the undersigned but also of a deceased person, who is somehow linked to the vehicle that the undersigned claims, an aspect that is equally contrary to the regulations and jurisprudence, since the person died prior to the trial being held, that is, in a state of innocence, which consequently entails the legal obligation to grant the present appeal regarding the assets that must be returned to each of the registered owners”. He indicates that the return of the vehicle had previously been ordered by judicial resolution; however, the Public Prosecutor's Office challenged the decision, despite the fact that —in his opinion— it was final, a precedent that was ignored by the trial court. He asserts that the judgment does not link him to the criminal activity and also does not state that he had knowledge of the use being given to the vehicle; nonetheless, forfeiture is ordered because it was used for the commission of an illicit act. He considers that the adopted decision was inappropriate “as the subjective and objective requirements of the criminal type of forfeiture as the loss of ownership of the seized asset in favor of the State were not met”; furthermore, because he was not linked to the illicit activity. He considers that the appropriate action was the return to him as the registered owner. He reiterates that the forfeiture is “atypical, as the objective and subjective requirements established by law for its application and appropriateness are not met” and because, although the asset was used for illicit activities, he is the legitimate owner at the registry level and has no knowledge of the use it was given. He indicates that the judgment takes as proven, since the contrary is not affirmed, that he did not facilitate the vehicle for its use in the commission of the illicit act. He reaffirms that the forfeiture “does not fit the criminal type” nor is it appropriate, so its definitive return is appropriate. He insists that the use of the vehicle in a crime is not sufficient, because if its registered owner did not participate in it, he must be considered a third party with a superior right; otherwise, it would constitute a confiscatory and abusive measure by the State. He requests the definitive return of the vehicle. He cites resolutions of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice No. 1595-2015, at 09:20 hours of December 18, 2018; of the Sentence Appeals Tribunal of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela No. 466-2012, at 09:45 hours of June 12, 2012; and of the Sentence Appeals Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José No. 1038-2018, at 14:55 hours of August 3, 2018. Regarding the grievance, he describes that it consists of being deprived of an asset of his property through the figure of forfeiture, despite the fact that it is not “typical”, which constitutes a confiscatory measure. He requests that the forfeiture be revoked and the return of the vehicle be ordered. **Third ground of appeal brought by [Name 045].** He claims “Violation of procedural law and due process, and concomitant protest of defective procedural activity of a relative nature”. He points out that, from the beginning of the proceeding, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the jurisdictional authorities were aware that the vehicle license plate [Value 030] was his property, a condition that places him as a party to the process, specifically a third party with a superior right or good faith. Despite the foregoing, he was not considered a procedural party, he was not summoned, nor notified so that he would be informed of the seizure of his vehicle and thereby exercise his rights. He states that his status in relation to the asset was ignored throughout the process, to the point that the judgment does not mention him. He affirms that the defect he protests consists of not having been considered a party, despite being the registered owner of the vehicle of interest, which constitutes a procedural defect, because he could not request the asset in provisional deposit or its return. He considers that the omission is not excused, because it is incumbent upon the Public Prosecutor's Office and the judicial authorities to consider him a party to the process ex officio, as provided in articles 93 and 94 of Law No. 8204. He emphasizes that the duty to inform him of the existence of the process as the registered owner was unfulfilled and prevented his participation in the oral trial in defense of his rights. He states that he appeared in the process assisted by the legal professional Rene Orellana Meléndez —who held a special power of attorney— when the debate was underway, but he was denied access to the file, under the justification that he is not a party to the process, in violation of his right of defense. He considers that a defective procedural activity of a relative nature occurred, due to the disregard for the forms and conditions established in articles 70, 71 and 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding his participation and exercise of his rights. He insists that he should have been informed of the existence of the process as a legitimate interested party, being the registered owner, which is correctable by granting a hearing in the judgment or by means of a retrial of the matter. Regarding the grievance, he affirms that he was not considered a party to the process and could not exercise his rights as a third party with a superior right over the seized asset. He requests that the claim be declared with merit, that he be granted a hearing, and that his request for the definitive return of the asset be resolved. He offers as evidence the pieces of the file that do not constitute judicial resolutions. He requests the convening of an oral hearing. **The complaint is declared with merit.** Because the three grounds of appeal deal with the same issue, they are heard and resolved jointly. The appellant [Name 045] challenges the forfeiture order over the Toyota Hilux SRV vehicle, license plate [Value 030], which is registered in his name, since, in his view, he had a superior right to the asset. Having analyzed the file, this Tribunal observes that Mr. [Name 045] voluntarily appeared in the process and requested the return of the vehicle during the investigation stage (cf. folio 3145 of the investigation file), a request that was denied with grounds by the Public Prosecutor's Office (cf. folios 3189 to 3191 of the investigation file). In this context, it was unnecessary to inform him of his right to appear, as provided in article 93 of Law No. 8204, since said communication is intended to ensure that the person knows of the existence of the process and can exercise his rights.\n\nThat purpose was fully accomplished in this case, given that Mr. [Name 333] not only knew that the process was underway, but also filed various motions, which—although they did not succeed in the manner he intended—were duly addressed by the investigating body. The appellant is correct, however, in that, at the time the judgment was issued, the procedural stage at which the final disposition of the vehicle should have been resolved, the a quo omitted to refer to his claims regarding the asset, as its registered titleholder. This omission is relevant, because the forfeiture (comiso) order could not be issued without considering the guidelines set forth in Article 94 of Law No. 8204, according to which: \"The court or competent authority shall order the return of the assets, products or instruments to the claimant, when it has been proven and concluded that: a) The claimant has a legitimate interest regarding the assets, products or instruments. b) The claimant cannot be attributed with any type of authorship or participation in an illicit trafficking offense or related offenses that are the subject of the proceedings. c) The claimant was unaware, without gross negligence (negligencia), of the illegal use of the assets, products or instruments, or, having knowledge, did not voluntarily consent to their illegal use. d) The claimant did not acquire any right to the assets, products or instruments from the prosecuted person, under circumstances that reasonably lead to the conclusion that the right over them would have been transferred to him to avoid possible seizure and forfeiture (comiso). e) The claimant did everything reasonably possible to prevent the illegal use of the assets, products or instruments.\" In this case, since the owner of the asset expressly requested its return during the processing of the case, his arguments should have been considered and a decision made accordingly, either granting or denying his claims, an aspect that was omitted. Although the judgment clearly establishes a link between the motor vehicle and its use for the commission of a drug trafficking offense—which constitutes one of the prerequisites for forfeiture (comiso), as indicated in Article 110 of the Criminal Code of Costa Rica (Código Penal)—that circumstance does not relieve the authority of the duty to consider the rights of third parties who may be affected by the measure. By virtue of the lack of reasoning (fundamentación) noted in the lower court ruling, it is appropriate to grant the grounds for appeal filed by Mr. [Name 045] and declare them with merit; consequently, the forfeiture (comiso) order for the Toyota brand, Hilux SRV model vehicle, license plate [Value 030] is annulled, and a retrial (reenvío) is ordered, so that this issue is heard anew, at which time the complainant's arguments regarding the registered title of the motor vehicle must be assessed. \n\n**Sole ground for the challenge filed by [Name 044].** He details that the judgment ordered the forfeiture (comiso) in favor of the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad Pública) of a Taurus brand, model PT92AF, caliber 9, serial number TFO56301 firearm, seized pursuant to seizure record (acta) 093950. He indicates that he did not participate in the proceeding as an accused or a witness. He recounts that on November 13, 2017, he filed a complaint with the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial) for the loss of the firearm, at which time he provided documentation proving his status as the owner of the asset. He refers that in March 2024, the Directorate of Arms and Explosives (Dirección de Armas y Explosivos) informed him that the firearm had been seized in a judicial proceeding, which is why, on March 19, 2024, he requested the return of the firearm from the court handling the case and submitted as support an invoice, registration, and carry permit; however, he was not notified of the decision. He accuses a lack of reasoning (fundamentación) and insufficient reasoning (fundamentación). He points out that the judgment ordered the forfeiture (comiso) without clearly stating the specific grounds or reasons supporting the decision. He argues that the decision does not mention that the firearm was seized from his person, that it was used in the dynamics of the investigated facts, or that it was used with knowledge of the illicit activity, or any other reason justifying the forfeiture (comiso). He reiterates that the judgment does not link him to the facts, not even as an accused. He considers it a true defect that the office or person in charge of the investigation did not locate or summon him to inform him of the seizure of the firearm, especially since a complaint for loss had been on file since the indicated date. He emphasizes that, despite filing a request for the return of the firearm, the judgment does not mention him and does not state the reasons why the return or restitution of the object was not ordered. As a grievance, he states that he is harmed by having to wait three months from the finality of the judgment to request the return of the firearm, despite being its legitimate owner and not having participated in the facts. He considers that the lack of information about the object caused harm to his use and enjoyment thereof. He requests that the forfeiture (comiso) order be declared ineffective and that the return of the firearm be ordered without the need for a retrial (reenvío). **The ground is declared with merit**. The study of the case file reveals that at folio 5030 there is a request for the return of the Taurus brand firearm, serial number TFO56301, signed by [Name 044], to which was attached an invoice from the business \"Armería Polini\"; a copy of complaint 000-17-032364, from criminal case 17-030882-0042-PE in which its loss is reported; a copy of a personal firearm carry permit, a copy of the firearm registration issued by the Department of Arms and Explosives Control (Departamento de Control de Armas y Explosivos) of the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad Pública), and a copy of the petitioner's identity card (cf. fs. 5030 to 5037 of the investigation file). In response to said petition, the Specialized Criminal Court for Organized Crime (Tribunal Penal Especializado en Delincuencia Organizada), in a decision at 10:55 a.m. on March 19, 2024, ordered, insofar as relevant: \"the filing is acknowledged and since the mentioned firearm is under seizure and forms part of the accusation that will be resolved in an oral and public trial, it will be resolved in the judgment and the corresponding communication will be made\" (cf. f. 5038 of the investigation file). However, upon analyzing the lower court ruling, this Chamber notes that any reference to the request for return made by Mr. [Name 044] was completely omitted, which constitutes an evident lack of reasoning (fundamentación). The detected omission cannot be remedied by this Chamber, since to determine whether the return of the Taurus firearm, serial number TFO56301, to its registered titleholder is appropriate, or whether that circumstance yields to the link that was made between the asset and the criminal activity—which gave rise to the forfeiture (comiso) order—it is necessary to carry out a balancing exercise of an evidentiary nature. Deciding on this matter at this stage would limit the parties' right to broadly discuss the issue at another instance, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention on Human Rights. By virtue of the foregoing, the sole ground for appeal filed by [Name 044] is declared **with merit**; consequently, the forfeiture (comiso) order for the Taurus brand firearm, serial number TFO56301, is annulled, and a retrial hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation of that matter. At said hearing, the arguments of Mr. [Name 044] regarding the ownership of the aforementioned asset must be assessed. \n\n**Extension of Pretrial Detention.** In accordance with Articles 10 of Law No. 9481 and 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), fourth paragraph, as well as decision No. 2025-742, issued at 3:13 p.m. on June 26, 2025, by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), the extension of pretrial detention (prórroga de prisión preventiva) is hereby ordered for ([Name 004]), [Name 015], [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 019], [Name 013], [Name 030], ([Name 016]), [Name 022], [Name 029], [Name 007], and [Name 026], for a period of **twelve months**, counted from the expiration date, that is, from November 21, 2025, to November 21, 2026, for the purpose of holding the retrial hearing (juicio de reenvío) that has been ordered to determine and provide reasoning for the sentence to be imposed on the defendants ([Name 004]), [Name 015], [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 013], [Name 030], [Name 016], [Name 022], [Name 029], [Name 007], and [Name 026]; as well as for a new discussion of the criminal liability of ([Name 016]) and [Name 019], for the crime of drug trafficking. This Chamber takes into consideration that the circumstances that motivated the imposition of the precautionary measure have not changed, since the risk of flight remains subsistent, given the weakness of the defendants' community ties.\n\nIn addition to the foregoing, the declaration of criminal liability of ([Nombre 004]) and [Nombre 007], for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas agravado); of [Nombre 015], [Nombre 001], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], for the crimes of aggravated drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales); of [Nombre 019], [Nombre 030] and ([Nombre 016]), for the offense of money laundering and finally of [Nombre 010] for the offenses of aggravated drug trafficking and simple homicide, has been reviewed and confirmed by this Court in the present ruling, which increases the flight risk, since it constitutes a clear incentive for the accused persons to evade the criminal process if released, considering the high sentences they could face if their legal situation is consolidated. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in resolution 30505-2025, of 09:30 hours on September 19, 2025, stated: «On repeated occasions this Chamber has considered that a conviction may constitute a sufficient basis to revoke a release granted or to order a detention not previously imposed during the proceedings, since that circumstance changes the state in which the person subject to trial was before it occurred and in some cases be the cause of an evasion of the action of justice. This does not mean that the state of innocence enjoyed by the accused while a final judgment does not provide otherwise disappears, or that an illegitimate distinction is made, but that the situation of the accused in relation to the process changes. That change can alter their relationship with the purposes of the process and consequently motivate that the restriction on liberty be ordered, to protect those purposes, which also have constitutional roots (see judgment No. 2023-032737 of 09:20 hours of December 15, 2023, as well as judgment No. 2025-012212 of 09:20 hours of April 25, 2025)» (Highlighting supplied). In this context, the extension of the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention (prisión preventiva) is the only one that can effectively mitigate that procedural risk and keep the accused persons subject to the process, while the retrial (juicio de reenvío) that has been ordered is carried out.\n\n**Summary of the decision adopted regarding the appeals submitted for consideration**. Due to the length of the ruling, for a better understanding of how the appeals (recursos de apelación de sentencia) filed by the parties have been resolved, the decision is summarized as follows: The fifth ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Nombre 001], and the fourth ground of the challenge brought by Master Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defender of ([Nombre 016]), are declared without merit (recital V); the first ground of the appeal filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva and the third ground filed by the defendant [Nombre 030], in exercise of his material defense, are declared without merit (recital VI); the fourth ground of appeal filed by the private defender Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Nombre 001], is declared without merit (recital VII); the first ground of the challenge filed by Francisco Mena Ayales and the first ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of [Nombre 029], are declared without merit (recital VIII); the second ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández representing [Nombre 029] is declared without merit (recital IX); the second, third, and fourth grounds of the appeal personally filed by [Nombre 029] and the third ground of the challenge filed by Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of that same defendant, are declared without merit (recital X); by majority vote, the first ground of the appeal filed by [Nombre 029] and the fourth ground of his defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández are declared with merit; consequently, a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of the penalty to be imposed for the crimes of aggravated drug trafficking and money laundering, at which time the principle of no reform to the detriment (principio de no reforma en perjuicio) operating in favor of [Nombre 029] must be respected. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (recital XI); the second ground of the challenge filed by the co-accused [Nombre 026] and the first ground of her defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández are declared without merit (recital XII); the first ground of the appeal personally filed by the co-accused [Nombre 026] and the second ground of her representative Marilén Solórzano Hernández are declared without merit (recital XIII); by majority vote, the third ground of the appeal personally filed by [Nombre 026] is partially upheld, and consequently, the sentence imposed is annulled, solely with respect to the crime of drug trafficking. A retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of this point, at which time the principle of no reform to the detriment must be observed. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. Regarding the penalty set for the offense of money laundering, the ground is declared without merit by unanimous vote (recital XIV); the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by Master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015], are declared without merit (recital XV); the third ground of appeal filed by Master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015], is declared without merit (recital XVI); the fourth ground of appeal filed by Master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015], is partially upheld; consequently, the 10-year sentence imposed on [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of that point, which must be held in observance of the principle of no reform to the detriment. The 10-year prison sentence set for the offense of money laundering remains unaltered (recital XVII); the sole ground of the challenge filed by [Nombre 007] is declared without merit. On the Court's own motion, by majority vote, the penalty imposed for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of that point, based on the delimitations made by the majority of this Chamber. On that occasion, the principle of no reform to the detriment must be observed. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (recital XVIII); the first ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, on behalf of the defendant [Nombre 010], is declared without merit (recital XIX); by majority vote, the second ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, on behalf of the defendant [Nombre 010], is declared with merit; consequently, the sentence imposed on said defendant for the crime of simple homicide committed to the detriment of the minor [Nombre 180] is annulled and a retrial is ordered to proceed to substantiate this point again.\n\nJudge Escalante Quirós dissents (considendo XX); the third ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga on behalf of the accused [Name 010] is rejected. By majority, on the Court's own motion, the penalty imposed on the defendant for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled, because even though the legal classification did not undergo any change, the delimitation of his criminal participation established in this ruling could have some incidence on his criminal reproach, for which reason the appropriate course is to rehear this point anew. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXI); the second ground of the appeal filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla is granted; consequently, the conviction entered against [Name 030] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, as well as the penalty imposed, is revoked and instead he is acquitted of all liability and punishment for said offense (considerando XXII). As unnecessary, a pronouncement is omitted on the first ground of the appeal against sentence filed personally by co-defendant [Name 030] and the third ground of his defense attorney José Pablo Badilla Villanueva (considerando XXIII); the second ground of the appeal against sentence filed personally by co-defendant [Name 030], and additionally, the fourth and fifth grounds of attorney Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030], are rejected (considerando XXIV); by majority, the sixth ground of the appeal pursued by Dr. Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030] and the fourth ground of appeal filed by the defendant are granted, the sanction imposed for the offense of money laundering is annulled, and the case is remanded for a new hearing, in strict observance of the principle of non-reform in peius. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXV); the third ground of appeal pursued by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, is rejected (considerando XXVI); by majority, the first ground of appeal pursued by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, and the fifth ground of the appeal filed by private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga are granted; consequently, the declaration of criminal liability of said defendant for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, as well as the penalty imposed, is annulled and a remand trial is ordered for a new hearing. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXVII); the second ground of appeal pursued by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, and the fourth ground of his defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga are rejected (considerando XXVIII); the first ground of the appeal against sentence brought by Maestro Manuel Soto Aguilar, in representation of ([Name 016]), is rejected (considerando XXIX); by majority, the second ground of the appeal filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense attorney for ([Name 016]), is granted; consequently, the declaration of criminal liability of the accused [Name 016] for the crime of drug trafficking, as well as the penalty imposed for said offense, is annulled and the case is remanded for a new hearing. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXX); the third ground of the appeal against sentence filed by Maestro Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense attorney for ([Name 016]), is rejected (considerando XXXI); the fifth ground of the appeal filed by Maestro Manuel Soto Aguilar is granted; consequently, the penalty imposed on ([Name 016]) for the crime of money laundering is annulled and the case is remanded for a new hearing on this point, in which the principle of non-reform in peius must be respected and the evidence offered by the defense in favor of the defendant must be considered (considerando XXXII); the first and third grounds of the appeal pursued by ([Name 004]) in exercise of his material defense, as well as the sole ground of the appeal filed by his representative Marilén Solórzano Hernández, are rejected. By majority, on the Court's own motion, the penalty imposed on ([Name 004]) for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled and the case is remanded for a new hearing on that point. On that occasion, the principle of non-reform in peius must be respected. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXXIII); as unnecessary, a pronouncement is omitted on the second ground of the appeal filed by ([Name 004]) in exercise of his material defense. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXXIV); the second ground of appeal presented by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, in representation of [Name 001], is rejected (considerando XXXV); the third ground of appeal pursued by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales on behalf of [Name 001] is rejected (considerando XXXVI); by majority, the sixth ground of appeal pursued by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales is granted; consequently, the penalty imposed on [Name 001] for the crime of international drug trafficking is annulled and a remand trial is ordered for a new hearing on that point by the trial court.\n\nJudge Escalante Quirós dissents (Considerando XXXVII); unanimously, the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by private defender Luis Cubillo Pacheco on behalf of [Nombre 001] are dismissed. Furthermore, by majority, the court sua sponte (de oficio) annuls the seizure (comiso) order issued over the dwelling built on properties [Valor 140], [Valor 016], [Valor 141], and [Valor 142] and orders a retrial (juicio de reenvío) for that point to be re-substantiated, following a hearing for the registered owners of the assets. The foregoing, by virtue of the impossibility of seizing the building separately—which has been clearly established as a product of illicit drug trafficking—without also including the land on which it sits in said disposition. On this last point, Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (Considerando XXXVIII); the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by [Nombre 331], in their capacity as executor of the estate of [Nombre 046], are granted (con lugar); consequently, the seizure order over the assets that were confiscated from the latter is annulled, and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of this point, following a prior consideration of the provisions in Article 94 of Ley N.° 8204 (Considerando XXXIX). As it is unnecessary, a ruling on the third ground of that same challenge is omitted (Considerando XL); the first, second, and third grounds of the challenge brought by [Nombre 045] are granted. Consequently, the seizure order for the Toyota-brand vehicle, Hilux SRV style, license plate [Valor 030] is annulled, and the matter is remanded for a retrial (reenvío a juicio) so that this point can be re-substantiated, at which time the complainant's arguments regarding the ownership of the motor vehicle at the registry level must be evaluated (Considerando XLI); the single ground of appeal brought by [Nombre 044] is granted; consequently, the seizure order for the Taurus-brand firearm, serial number TFO56301, is annulled, and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of this point. At that time, Mr. [Nombre 044]'s arguments regarding the ownership of the aforementioned asset must be evaluated (Considerando XLII).\n\n**POR TANTO:**\n\nBy majority, the first ground of the appeal filed by [Nombre 029] in exercise of their material defense and the fourth ground of the challenge brought by their private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández are **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crimes of aggravated drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is annulled. A retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of that point. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority, the third ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Nombre 026] is declared **partially granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed solely for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled, and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The sentence established for the illicit act of money laundering remains unaltered. The fourth ground of the appeal filed by Mtr. Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015], is declared **partially granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation. The sentence established for the crime of money laundering remains unaltered. By majority, the second ground of the appeal filed by private defender Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, on behalf of the defendant [Nombre 010], is **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crime of simple homicide is annulled, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation of that aspect. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The second ground of the appeal filed by private defender José Pablo Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Nombre 030] is **granted**; consequently, the declaration of criminal responsibility against the defendant for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, as well as the sentence imposed, is revoked, and in its place, he is acquitted of all punishment and responsibility for said crime. As it is unnecessary, a ruling is omitted on the third ground of the challenge managed by Dr. Badilla Villanueva and the first ground of the accused [Nombre 030] in exercise of his material defense. By majority, the fourth ground of the appeal filed by the accused [Nombre 030] and the sixth ground of his legal representative Badilla Villanueva are **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crime of money laundering on the defendant [Nombre 030] is annulled, and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of this. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority, the first ground of the appeal filed by ([Nombre 019]) and the fifth ground of the technical defense are **granted**; consequently, the declaration of criminal responsibility for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, as well as the sentence imposed, is annulled, and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority, the second ground of the appeal managed by Manuel Soto Aguilar, on behalf of ([Nombre 016]), is **granted**; consequently, the declaration of criminal responsibility against the defendant solely for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, as well as the sentence imposed for said crime, is annulled, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The fifth ground of the appeal filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar, on behalf of ([Nombre 016]), is **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crime of money laundering is annulled, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation. By majority, the sixth ground of the challenge brought by private defender Francisco Mena Ayales is **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed on [Nombre 001] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The first and second grounds of the appeal brought by [Nombre 331], in their capacity as executor of the estate of [Nombre 046], are **granted**; consequently, the seizure order for the assets seized from the late [Nombre 046] is annulled, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation of that point. As it is unnecessary, a ruling on the third ground of that challenge is omitted. The first, second, and third grounds of the challenge brought by [Nombre 045] are **granted**; consequently, the seizure order for the Toyota-brand vehicle, Hilux SRV style, license plate [Valor 030] is annulled, and the matter is remanded for a new substantiation. The single ground of the challenge managed by [Nombre 044] is **granted**; consequently, the seizure order for the Taurus-brand firearm, serial number TFO56301, is annulled, and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of that point. By majority, the court sua sponte annuls the sentence imposed on [Nombre 007] for the crime of drug trafficking, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation of that point. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority, the court sua sponte annuls the sentence imposed on [Nombre 010] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation of that point. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority, the court sua sponte annuls the sentence imposed on ([Nombre 004]) for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, and the matter is remanded for a retrial for a new substantiation of that point. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. As it is unnecessary, a ruling on the second ground of the appeal filed personally by the accused ([Nombre 004]) is omitted. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority, sua sponte, the seizure order over the dwelling located in San José, Tibás, León XIII, Garabito, Alameda I, on property numbers [Valor 014], [Valor 015], [Valor 016], [Valor 139], and [Valor 018] is annulled; consequently, the matter is remanded for a retrial so that this point is re-substantiated, following a hearing for the registered titleholders of the last four properties. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The remaining points of the appeals filed by the parties are declared **dismissed**.\n\nThe extension of pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) is ordered for the defendants [Nombre 004], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 019], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 030], ([Nombre 016]), [Nombre 022], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 007], and [Nombre 026], for a period of 12 months, running from November 21, 2025, to November 21, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMónica Hernández Leiva\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAndrea Renauld Castro Max Antonio Escalante Quirós\n\n\n\nJudges of the Specialized Criminal Appeals Court for Organized Crime (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Especializado en Delincuencia Organizada)\n\n\n\nDocket (Expediente): 18-000104-1219-PE\nDefendant: [Nombre 001] and others\nCrime: Aggravated drug trafficking and others Victim: Public health and others\n\n\nExpediente N.° 18-000104-1219-PE – Voto N.° 2025-0039\n______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________\nI Circuito Judicial de San José, San José, Edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Tercer Piso. Teléfonos: 2211-5349, 2211-5350\no 2211-5351. Correo electrónico: sjo-tpenalapela-jedo@Poder-Judicial.go.cr\nPág. 1\n\n\"[...] \n\nVI. [...] The grounds for appeal are declared without merit. The procedural institution of bifurcation (cesura) is provided for in Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), which states: \"Request for conducting the trial in two phases. Within the time limit established in the preceding article, the accused may request that the trial be held in two phases, so that the first phase addresses the existence of guilt and the second, if it exists, addresses the individualization of the penalty and civil consequences. Within that same time limit, the civil parties may make the same request, but with regard to the civil consequences. Before remitting the proceedings, the court shall rule on the request. Once the foregoing matters are resolved, the proceedings, documents, and seized objects shall be remitted to the trial court, and the detainees shall be placed at its order\" (Emphasis supplied). As is clear from the foregoing provision, it is a procedural mechanism that allows for the division of the trial into two phases: the first, known in doctrine as the interlocutory hearing on guilt (interlocutorio de culpabilidad), debates the existence of the punishable act and the criminal liability of the accused person; while the second corresponds to the sentencing stage, in which the penalty to be imposed is discussed and the evidence on this particular matter is received, should it have been offered and admitted. This second stage is called the interlocutory hearing on the setting of the penalty (interlocutorio de fijación de la pena). In the Costa Rican legal system, the division of the trial does not correspond to the natural course of the process but must be preceded by a request from the accused person before the judge at the intermediate stage, who must rule on the petition prior to remitting the case to trial. [...] From the review conducted, it is possible to conclude that, regarding the institution of bifurcation, the a quo follows the thesis expressed by the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) in resolution No. 2000-00376, of 09:55 hours on April 7, 2000, according to which, in those cases where evidence related to the penalty or civil matters need not be received, it is not necessary to conduct the second part of the trial, namely: \"It should be added that, to decide whether the trial is held in two stages or not, the Court must consider the raison d'être of the bifurcation, which is found in Article 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This last numeral provides that the second stage of the trial is specially provided for the individualization of the criminal and civil effects of the punishable act and, more importantly, the second paragraph of the last cited legal provision requires having offered evidence to be able to individualize the consequences of the crime. The foregoing indicates why the possibility of dividing the trial into two phases is contemplated. If evidentiary elements especially relevant for determining the criminal and civil effects of a crime are not offered, then applying the bifurcation makes no sense\" (Emphasis supplied). This Chamber (Cámara), after a careful assessment of the institution, permits itself to dissent from the position set forth above, considering that, when bifurcation has been ordered, holding the interlocutory hearing on the setting of the penalty is not contingent upon the receipt of evidence, not only because Article 323 of the adjective code does not so provide, but because its raison d'être is to address, with greater scope and detail, the circumstances that have an impact on the individualization of the sanction to be applied —or of the civil consequences, as appropriate—, such as the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, application of substitutive or accessory penalties, recidivism, unification of sentences, among others. That is, once bifurcation is ordered by judicial resolution, the execution of the second stage depends solely on the declaration of guilt. Adding other requirements implies an extensive interpretation of the norm, in contrast to what is provided in Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which permits this type of reading only when it benefits the participants in the process. Furthermore, it must also be noted that, after the judge at the intermediate stage issues a judicial resolution ordering bifurcation, the procedure is transformed from an ordinary one into a biphasic one, with preclusive effects. The decision is not susceptible to being revoked by the trial court, nor waived by the parties, unless justified reasons exist and due reasoning is provided. Moreover, precisely because a transformation of the process exists, it affects all persons jointly tried, not only those who pursued it. The court could not divide the trial only for one or several accused and conduct it continuously for the rest, for reasons of unity and coherence of the process. The trial is a logical unit in which the facts, evidence, and parties are closely linked, such that it would not be possible to divide it solely based on some participants. [...] However, it is verified that the alleged procedural defect is of a relative nature and was validated by the inaction of the participants in the trial. Note that the decision was not challenged by any of the parties, as they remained silent, which indicates a tacit conformity with what the court ordered. At this point, it is important to highlight that the purpose of guaranteeing the accused person a technical defense is not merely formal, but seeks to ensure that the designated or appointed defense counsel plays an active role during the process, safeguarding the interests of their client. In this sense, it is inadmissible for one to opt for inaction when available procedural mechanisms exist to challenge a decision, and subsequently attempt to obtain a benefit derived from that passivity. Indeed, under the terms of Articles 442 and 449 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal for reversal was appropriate against the court's decision to dispense with holding the second phase of the trial; however, none of the parties, including the technical defense of [Name 030] —who now challenges—, pursued it. [...]\"\n\nThe circumstance complained of is nothing more than the technical defense's disagreement with the trial court's direction of the proceedings, which in no way constitutes a defect susceptible to being declared in this instance. In matters processed within the Specialized Jurisdiction for Organized Crime, the maximum period for suspension of the proceedings is 20 days —which is inferred from subsections 10(d) of Law No. 9481 and 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal)—. In the case at hand, a review of the record allows us to conclude that this period was not exceeded, as recorded by the trial court in the second resultando of the judgment, namely: [...] Now, the defense's disagreement specifically centers on the fact that, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), all telephone communications intercepted by order of the judge of the preliminary investigation stage were played during the trial, which caused 76 days to elapse from the time the receipt of testimonial evidence concluded until other trial proceedings were carried out. In this regard, it must be noted that the criminal process is structured to advance in stages. Thus, the judge of the intermediate stage is responsible for, as one of the tasks assigned by law, the examination of the accusation (Article 319 of the procedural code), which includes assessing the relevance, necessity, and suitability of the evidence supporting it. The same analysis applies to the evidence offered by the other parties to the process. In that sense, Article 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal) provides: «The court of the intermediate procedure shall admit the evidence pertinent for the correct resolution of the case, and shall order, on its own motion, that which proves essential. It shall reject that which it considers evidently abundant or unnecessary. On its own motion, it may order that evidence be received at trial, only when the negligence of one of the parties is manifest and its source lies in the proceedings already carried out. The only recourse against what is decided is a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria), without prejudice to reiterating the request to receive inadmitted evidence, as evidence for a better decision (prueba para mejor resolver), before the trial court.» Therefore, it is at that stage that oppositions to the evidence offered by the other parties of the process must be formulated. Once the judge of the intermediate stage admits the evidence to be produced at trial, the discussion on that point is precluded, and it is incumbent upon the trial court to act accordingly, through the production of the admitted evidence —which, it is worth highlighting, becomes common to all parties—, as referenced in Article 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal): «The documents shall be read and exhibited at the hearing, with an indication of their origin. The objects and other elements of conviction that have been seized shall be exhibited for their recognition by the witnesses, the experts, or the accused. The recordings and audiovisual evidence elements shall be played [...]». The communications captured as a product of a telephone interception form part of the body of evidence with the same rank as testimonial, documentary, and expert evidence; consequently, the time invested in their playback during the trial cannot be understood as a stoppage of the trial, but rather as what it really is: a continuation of the evidence production stage. The defense seems to understand that there is a preeminence of testimonial evidence over the rest, which is erroneous. Our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence (principio de libertad probatoria), which does not establish per se a specific value for evidence depending on its nature. The examination of the evidence, governed by the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica), is what allows value to be assigned to each piece of evidence produced at trial, so it is evidently an exercise that is carried out a posteriori, during deliberation. In this case, indeed, it has been possible to verify that the content of the telephone interceptions was one of the determining elements for the accreditation of the prosecution's theory, so it is not possible to consider it secondary or marginal in comparison with the testimonial evidence. [...] \"\n\nIn particular, the first of those rules states, in relevant part: «[...] the intervention may only be authorized if there are sufficient indications that a criminal activity is being carried out». Thus, what is required is a balancing of the existence of indications that allow the prosecution's theory to be considered plausible, regarding the participation of the subjects who would be affected by the requested measure in a criminal act, and not the demonstration of certainty of participation in the illicit act, since the latter is required only for the issuance of a conviction. This elementary distinction has been addressed by the Sentencing Appeals Court (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia) of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, in resolution (resolución) no. 2017-330, of 2:26 p.m. on May 12, 2017, a pronouncement that, due to its clarity, is worth mentioning: [...] Factors such as the type of investigation involved, the procedural stage of the matter, the exhaustion of less harmful means to continue the inquiries, and the degree of impact on the fundamental rights involved must be taken into account in order to establish what degree of evidentiary link must be required with the commission of the act and how reasonable the restriction that would be produced through the evidentiary technique is. In any case, it must be clear that, while to issue a conviction it is necessary to reach a judgment of certainty about the guilt of the accused in the acts attributed to them, the existence of «sufficient indications» is enough to authorize telephone intervention (intervención telefónica). In that sense, this Chamber endorses the criterion expressed by the Sentencing Appeals Court of Cartago, in resolution no. 2017-00262, of 1:52 p.m. on May 26, 2017, in which it indicated: [...]\"\n\n[...] By majority vote, the ground is declared without merit. [...] The foregoing passage confirms what was stated above, in the sense that the sole evidentiary input assessed to establish the sale of drugs to third parties by [Name 010] consisted of telephone communications intercepted by judicial order which, in this case, unlike what occurred with other defendants, are insufficient because there was no form of external corroboration of their content. Given this scenario, in the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, it is not possible to maintain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that those telephone contacts resulted in actual drug transactions, as they constitute circumstantial evidence (indicios) that must be reinforced by other means to support their veracity, which did not occur. It is important to note that the drug trafficking by the organization was fully established with the evidence admitted at trial, as analyzed in recital (considerando) X, dedicated to examining the legal situation of [Name 029], to which reference is made. Therein, it was corroborated that there was an active supply of drugs, mainly cocaine, to other organizations so that they, in turn, could provide them to third parties. The lower court (a quo) referred to this activity in the judgment when assessing the situation of [Name 010], thereby attempting to extend these transfers to said defendant, to give meaning to the previously cited communications and to infer that they involved drug transactions. Clearly, this information is highly relevant because it confirms the principal activity carried out by the criminal organization of which [Name 010] was a part and in which he assumed specific tasks, but, upon a comprehensive analysis of the body of evidence, the majority of this Tribunal cannot extrapolate it in the manner intended by the lower court (a quo), to give meaning to the communications in which said defendant interacts with third parties and to determine, beyond any doubt, that they corresponded to drug transactions. This is so since the indicated conversations, even starting from the existing circumstantial evidence framework, do not rule out reasonable hypotheses such as the existence of a negotiation for narcotics that was never finalized by [Name 010], which would not be punishable. This authority is fully aware that the principle of freedom of proof operates in our criminal procedural system, according to which facts may be proven by any lawfully obtained evidence, such that it is not possible to demand controlled purchases, seizures from third parties, or any specific type of evidence to establish the retail drug sale attributed to [Name 010]. Nonetheless, the criminal action corresponds to the Public Prosecutor's Office and with it the burden of proof, which obliges it to provide lawful and sufficient elements that allow for the reconstruction, during the trial phase, of the fact sought to be proven, a task that was partially fulfilled with respect to this second function attributed to the defendant. [...]\n\nXXI.[...] By majority vote, the ground is declared without merit.[...] In the Costa Rican legal system, Article 45 defines co-perpetration (coautoría) as follows: \"The perpetrator of the punishable act typified as such is he who carries it out by himself or through another or others, and co-perpetrators (coautores) are those who carry it out jointly with the perpetrator.\" From a reading of the provision, it follows that co-perpetration (coautoría) consists of a form of plural criminal participation. The object of co-perpetration (coautoría) is a collective act, carried out by several active subjects, which is integrated by the individual causal contribution. In this line, it is not required that each co-perpetrator (coautor) execute the entirety of the typical action by himself; rather, it suffices that, based on a common resolution and a functional division of labor, he makes an essential contribution to the achievement of the crime. In the case of criminal acts carried out by criminal organizations, it is clear that their complexity prevents them from being executed alone, making it necessary for them to operate through a system of division of labor. Thus, the head of the gang can be considered a co-perpetrator (coautor), as he participates in a common plan and is responsible for coordinating, organizing, providing resources, among other things, thereby having an essential function; but the member of the organization who makes a contribution, even if specialized and limited, which contributes to the success of the illicit purpose, will also hold that status. In this regard, scholarly doctrine states: \"Co-perpetrators (coautores) do not commit different punishable acts, but rather intervene in a common act. Their contributions to the act must be legally assessed as an action that, as a whole, is subsumed under the respective criminal type [...] its objective type is fulfilled when the totality of the contributions to the act has caused the typical result in an objectively imputable manner. The question of whether the individual contribution to the act was a necessary condition for the result is irrelevant. Co-perpetrators (coautores) are responsible for a result produced in common, even if the contribution of each individual can be mentally suppressed without the result disappearing\" (Frister, Helmut. Derecho penal. Parte general. 1st ed., Buenos Aires, Hammurabi, 2011, p. 539). Thus, in the case of a criminal structure, not all co-perpetrators (coautores) directly carry out the typical verb. In crimes committed by criminal organizations, the center of gravity in the analysis of co-perpetration (coautoría) no longer lies univocally in the essentiality of the contribution, but rather the issue of the division of tasks (some of which are a necessary step for others to be executed) comes into play as an aspect inherent to the degree of complexity of the organization. In drug trafficking, not everyone will, for example, sell or transport the drug, but they may perform other indispensable contributions within the common plan, such that the contribution must be measured according to its necessity for the achievement of the collective act viewed as a whole. A person who provides security to the leader of a criminal organization prevents him from being neutralized by authorities or rival groups, as this could cause the continuity of the criminal activity to be interrupted or cut short. The physical safety of the leader enables him to continue giving orders, organizing work, among other activities, and thereby allows the entire structure to continue functioning successfully. Therefore, this role is not accessory but structurally indispensable and, consequently, is integrated within the division of tasks that makes it possible to execute the principal crime.[...]\n\nXXII.[...] The claim is granted.[...] As can be inferred from the foregoing passage, the lower court (a quo) considered that, from the initial facts set forth in the indictment (acusación), which describe the existence of the criminal organization and its modus operandi, it was possible to infer the accusation (imputación) of the crime of drug trafficking against the defendant [Name 030]. This Chamber disagrees with that assessment.\n\nThe criminal charge in criminal matters constitutes one of the essential pillars of due process, as it facilitates the effective exercise of the right to technical and material defense for the accused individual. A correct criminal charge implies that the indictment contains a clear, precise, and detailed account of the facts constituting the crime, thereby defining the object of the proceedings; thus, the person named as the accused has the possibility of understanding the conduct attributed to them and structuring a defense strategy to counter it. Article 303 of the Código Procesal Penal states in this regard: \"When the Public Prosecutor's Office considers that the investigation provides grounds to bring the accused to public trial, it shall file the indictment requesting the opening of trial. The indictment must contain: […] b) The precise and detailed account of the punishable act attributed.\" This requirement imposed on the prosecuting body does not constitute a mere formality, but rather a procedural safeguard that protects the defendant from facing a trial based on vague or imprecise charges. In this way, the aim is to prevent the criminal process, where the state's punitive power is exercised, from becoming a scenario of defenselessness, where the accused person may be surprised by a conviction based on charges they could not refute because they were unexpected or incomprehensible. Regarding the principle of criminal charge, this Chamber reaffirms and shares the criterion expressed by the Cartago Sentence Appeals Court in ruling No. 2019-0093, of 10:49 hours on March 22, 2019, namely:[...] From this perspective, the criminal charge demands a phenomenological determination of the attributed act, that is, it must be presented as a concrete event, situated in time and space, with information that allows the material and technical defense to understand the manner in which it occurred. The abstract or generic invocation of actions carried out within the criminal group —without a precise determination of who acted and what they did— is not sufficient; rather, it must be concrete and detailed, so that it can be contested, since only in this way is a real and effective defense guaranteed. Mere membership in a criminal group does not constitute a letter of marque to assign each of its members the quality of co-perpetrators in the totality of acts that could be committed within the organization. It is also necessary to have charged and proven what the specific contribution of each member was, within the framework of the distribution of functions that is characteristic of group action.[...]\" \n\n**XXXV.[...] The ground is declared without merit.** After analyzing the accusatory instrument, this Chamber dismisses the defects alleged by the defense. The principle of criminal charge derives from Articles 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 14 of the Inter-American Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to the latter, every person accused of a crime has the right: \"To be informed without delay, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the charge against him\" and also \"To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing.\" In the domestic legal system, Article 303 of the Código Procesal Penal translates this supra-constitutional guarantee into the requirement that the indictment contain \"The precise and detailed account of the punishable act attributed.\" Like any other procedural form, the proper criminal charge must be correlated with the right it protects, which in this case is the right to defense. By virtue of the foregoing, an appropriate criminal charge will be one that enables the affected person to effectively exercise their right to technical and material defense, by providing them with data that allows them to know and understand the attributed act and thus combat it. In this regard, the doctrine states: \"[...] for someone to be able to defend themselves, it is essential that there be something to defend against: that is, something attributed to them for having done or omitted to do in the factual world, with meaning in the legal world, a requirement which in criminal procedural matters is known as criminal charge. The core of this charge is, as has been observed, a factual hypothesis —an act or omission depending on whether it is claimed to violate a prohibition or a mandate of the legal order— attributed to the accused, which, in the judgment of the person formulating it, leads to criminal-legal consequences, since it contains all the elements, according to criminal law, of a punishable act. The correctly formulated charge is the key that opens the door to the possibility of defending oneself efficiently, for it allows one to deny all or some of its elements in order to avoid or mitigate the criminal-legal consequence to which it is intended to lead, or, in another way, to add the elements that, combined with those affirmed, also guide toward avoiding the consequence or reducing it. But, for the possibility of being heard to be an efficient means of exercising the defense, it cannot rest on a more or less vague or confused attribution of malice or enmity with the legal order, that is, an imprecise and disorganized account of the act or omission attributed to the accused, and much less on an abstraction (he committed homicide or usurpation), resorting to the name of the infraction, but rather, on the contrary, must have as its presupposition the clear, precise, and detailed affirmation of the concrete, singular act, from a person's life. This means describing an event —which is supposed to be real— with all the circumstances of manner, time, and place that locate it in the world of facts (temporally and spatially) and provide its concrete materiality.\" (Maier, Julio. Derecho Procesal Pena. Volume I. 2nd ed. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto, 2002, p.553). [...] In this case, we are faced with a complex criminal phenomenon, attributed to a criminal organization composed of a multiplicity of persons at different hierarchical levels, which is alleged to have committed acts spanning several months and constituting various criminal offenses. It is not possible, therefore, to apply the same parameters as for common crime, because, although acts constituting drug trafficking and money laundering are charged here, they cannot receive the same treatment, nor can the same formulation be expected as for another illicit act of the same nature, such as, for example, a drug transportation caught in flagrante delicto, whose characteristics of time, place, and manner are established with great ease. It is not in vain that domestic regulations, in accordance with international regulations, recognize as organized crime that phenomenon which presents: \"1) Collective participation. A group composed of three or more persons, which has not been formed fortuitously for the immediate commission of a crime. 2) Organized group. That it concerns a group with an organized structure, because there exists a specific role or task for each member of the group. 3) Permanence over time. That it exists for a certain time or for an indefinite period of time.\n\n4) Concerted action to commit crimes. That the person acts in concert with the purpose of committing one or more serious crimes\" (article 9 of Law No. 9481. In the same sense, article 2.a) of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime). Precisely because of the complexity involved in addressing a phenomenon of this nature, it cannot be expected that the accusation contains a description of every individual or material act that was carried out, since in these contexts liability is based on the contribution made to the overall plan.[...] With respect to the temporal delimitation, which was set between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, it is necessary to point out that, as already stated, one of the characteristics of a criminal organization is its duration over time, but, in addition, the principal crime charged, which corresponds to drug trafficking, is a permanent or continuous crime, which does not end until the moment the activity ceases, whether by decision of the active subject or due to causes beyond that person's control that prevent them from continuing the activity (See rulings No. 2000-1018, at 10:36 a.m., of September 1, 2000, of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and No. 2025-89, at 4:25 p.m., of January 20, 2025, of the Sentencing Appeals Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José). Hence, the setting of a broad temporal parameter does not constitute imprecision, but rather is due to the very nature of the criminal phenomenon charged.[...]\"\n\nXXXIX.[...] The appeal must be granted. Because the two grounds of appeal deal with the same issue, they are heard and resolved jointly. The general rule regarding forfeiture (comiso) is established in article 110 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal), according to which: \"The crime produces the loss in favor of the State of the instruments with which it was committed and of the things or values originating from its commission, or which constitute for the agent a profit derived from the same crime, except for the right that the victim or third parties may have over them. Excluded from this provision are the vehicles involved in the commission of the acts typified in article 254 bis(*) of the Criminal Code\". Although the figure is located within Title VII of the First Part of the Criminal Code, under the denomination of \"Civil consequences of the punishable act,\" it really does not have that character, given that in civil matters the party disposition principle (principio dispositivo) governs, according to which the parties have a monopoly over the process, in its initiation, progress, and termination, which implies that the jurisdictional authority must be petitioned to intervene. For its part, the forfeiture (comiso) can be declared even ex officio. Added to the above is that the forfeiture (comiso) lacks the compensatory, restitutive, or reparatory function that characterizes the civil consequences of the crime, and it also does not require the proof of damage for its imposition. Regarding its legal nature, the national doctrine states: \"The Costa Rican forfeiture (comiso) is, simply, a consequence indicated by the legislator for the crime (for a certain type of crimes, as stated) which, although it has criminal traits (legality, burden of proof, innocence, nexus with the act), civil traits (it proceeds against third parties), and administrative traits (state coerciveness and official action), does not fit precisely into any of them and, therefore, principles specific to the penalty (such as culpability or temporality), to security measures (such as personality), or to reparation (such as the party disposition principle) cannot be applied to it. Hence, it is valid for the legislator to regulate it for ex officio application, establishing the loss of ownership as definitive, etc. However, this does not mean that, as a rights-depriving measure that it ultimately is, it is not subject to principles such as legality and proportionality that are specific, even, to any sanctioning matter, including in areas of administrative law, as they are the only limiters of the State's power of imperium […]\". (Chinchilla Calderón, Rosaura. Constitucionalidad, naturaleza jurídica y límites del comiso en Costa Rica. Revista Digital de la Maestría en Ciencias Penales, No. 5, Universidad de Costa Rica. Available at: https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/RDMCP). Because the forfeiture (comiso) falls upon the assets, for it to proceed it is sufficient that their link to the criminal act is determined. This objective character explains why it can be decreed even in cases where the criminal prosecution against the person does not succeed. Despite the above, an analysis of the proportionality of the measure must be carried out in every case. Although article 110 of the Criminal Code —previously transcribed— does not expressly provide for it, respect for due process requires that those who hold a legitimate interest over the assets must be informed of the existence of the process, so that they may exercise their right to defense, to be heard, and to contradiction. Law No. 8204, which is of a special nature, in its article 93, does contemplate a provision in that sense, namely: \"The measures and sanctions referred to in the articles preceding this chapter shall be applied without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties. In accordance with the law, the possibility of appearing in the process shall be communicated to those who can assert a legitimate legal interest over the assets, products, or instruments, so that they may assert their rights.\" Added to the above is that article 94 of the same legal body provides: \"The court or competent authority shall order the return of the assets, products, or instruments to the claimant, when it has been proven and concluded that: a) The claimant has a legitimate interest regarding the assets, products, or instruments. b) The claimant cannot be attributed with any type of authorship or participation in a crime of illicit trafficking or related crimes that are the object of the process. c) The claimant did not know, without negligence involved, of the illegal use of assets, products, or instruments, or when, having knowledge, did not voluntarily consent to their illegal use. d) The claimant did not acquire any right to the assets, products, or instruments from the prosecuted person, in circumstances that reasonably lead to the conclusion that the right over them was transferred to them for the purpose of avoiding their possible seizure and forfeiture (comiso). e) The claimant did everything reasonable to prevent the illegal use of the assets, products, or instruments.\"\n\nThe foregoing provisions require the jurisdictional authority to perform several actions prior to ordering the confiscation (comiso) of assets: first, to verify the existence of third parties who may be affected by the order; if they exist, to confirm that they have been notified so they may exercise their rights; and second, to substantiate in the judgment the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the confiscation, after prior observance of the provisions of Article 94 of Law No. 8204.[...]\n\nParticipating in the decision of the appeal are the judges Mónica Hernández Leiva, Andrea Renauld Castro, and the judge Max Antonio Escalante Quirós.\n\nThe following appeared in person at this venue: the defendants [Name 019], [Name 026], [Name 029], [Name 004], [Name 007], [Name 030], and [Name 016], exercising their right to material defense; Mr. [Name 045], as an interested third party; Master Francisco Mena Ayales and licensed attorney Luis Antonio Cubillo Pacheco, as private defense counsel for the accused [Name 001]; Doctor José Pablo Badilla Villanueva, as private defense counsel for the accused [Name 030]; licensed attorney René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, as special judicial representative of Mr. [Name 037]; Master Manuel Emilio Soto Aguilar\n\non behalf of [Name 016]; Mr. Víctor Ramón Rodríguez de Sárraga, acting as defense counsel for the accused [Name 010] and [Name 019]; Ms. Marilén Solórzano Hernández, private defense counsel for the convicted individuals ([Name 004] and [Name 029]) and [Name 026]; Mr. Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, private defense counsel for the defendants ([Name 013], [Name 014], [Name 022]) and [Name 015]; Mr. [Name 044] as an interested third party and Mr. José Rodolfo Mora García, representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office, Office of the Assistant Prosecutor Against Drug Trafficking and Related Crimes.\n\nRESULTANDO:\n\nI.- By judgment no. 7-2024 of 10:00 a.m. on November 21, 2024, the Criminal Court Specialized in Organized Crime (Tribunal Penal Especializado en Delincuencia Organizada) resolved: «POR TANTO In accordance with the provisions of articles 39 and 41 of the Political Constitution, 8.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, 1, 30, 45, 50, 71 and 110 of the Criminal Code, 58, 77 subsection f), 69, 83, 84, 85, 87, 93 and 94 of the Law on Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances, Unauthorized Drugs, Related Activities, Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism, 1, 6, 7, 142, 238, 239, 239 bis subsection d), 240, 243, 265, 360, 361, 363, 364, 365, 366 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 2, 10 of the Reform of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch and Law Creating the Specialized Jurisdiction in Organized Crime (Ley 10369), by unanimous vote, it is resolved: 1) The incidents of Defective Procedural Activity raised by attorneys José Francisco Mena Ayales and Luis Antonio Cubillo Pacheco, on behalf of the defense counsel for the accused [Nombre 001], are declared without merit. 2) The following are declared: [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 016] and [Nombre 019], co-perpetrators responsible for the crime of DRUG TRAFFICKING IN ITS AGGRAVATED FORM committed to the detriment of PUBLIC HEALTH and in that capacity the following sentences are imposed upon them: [Nombre 001] the sentence of TWENTY YEARS OF PRISON, [Nombre 030] the sentence of FIFTEEN YEARS OF PRISON, ([Nombre 004]) ([Nombre 029]) the sentence of TWELVE YEARS OF PRISON, ([Nombre 013]) ([Nombre 004]), ([Nombre 022]) ([Nombre 022]), [Nombre 015], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 026], ([Nombre 004]) ([Nombre 004]), [Nombre 007], [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 019] the sentence of TEN YEARS OF PRISON.\n\n3- The following are declared: [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 016] and [Name 019], co-perpetrators responsible for the crime of MONEY LAUNDERING (LEGITIMACIÓN DE CAPITALES) in its aggravated form, committed to the detriment of THE SOCIOECONOMIC ORDER, and in that capacity the following sentences are imposed upon them: upon [Name 001] the sentence of TWENTY YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, upon [Name 030] the sentence of FIFTEEN YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, upon ([Name 029]) ([Name 029]) the sentence of TWELVE YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, upon ([Name 013]) ([Name 004]), ([Name 022]) ([Name 022]), [Name 015], [Name 016] and [Name 019] the sentence of TEN YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT. 4- [Name 010] is declared the perpetrator responsible for a crime of Simple Homicide as reclassified, and in that capacity the sentence of EIGHTEEN YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT is imposed upon him. 5- Given the existence of a material concurrence relationship between the crimes of Drug Trafficking in its aggravated form, Money Laundering in its aggravated form, and Simple Homicide, the total sentences imposed upon the convicted individuals, as applicable, are as follows: upon [Name 001] the total sentence of FORTY YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, upon [Name 030] the total sentence of THIRTY YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, upon [Name 029] the total sentence of TWENTY-FOUR YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, upon ([Name 013]), [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 026], [Name 016] and [Name 019] the total sentence of TWENTY YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT, upon [Name 010] the total sentence of TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT. In the case of [Name 004] and [Name 007], they shall serve only the sentence already indicated for the crime of Drug Trafficking of TEN YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT. The sentences imposed shall be served in the place and manner determined by the Regulations of the Penitentiary System, with credit given for the preventive detention time already served. PREVENTIVE DETENTION is ordered for a period of TWELVE MONTHS starting today, November 21, 2024, and until November 21, 2025, for [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 029], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 016] and [Name 019]. 6- [Name 033] is acquitted of all penalty and responsibility for a crime of Drug Trafficking in its aggravated form to the detriment of Public Health and for a crime of Money Laundering to the detriment of the Socioeconomic Order; [Name 007] is acquitted of a crime of Money Laundering to the detriment of the Socioeconomic Order. In the case of [Name 033], the cessation of any personal or real precautionary measure that may have been ordered against him in connection with this criminal case is ordered. 7- Regarding the forfeiture (comiso).\n\nPursuant to the provisions set forth in numerals 58, 69, 77, 83, 84, 85, 87, 93, and 94 of Ley 8204, Ley sobre estupefacientes, sustancias psicotrópicas, drogas de uso no autorizado, actividades conexas, legitimación de capitales y financiamiento al terrorismo, and article 110 of the Código Penal, FORFEITURE (COMISO) IS ORDERED IN FAVOR OF THE INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE SOBRE DROGAS (hereinafter ICD), MINISTERIO DE HACIENDA, TESORERIA NACIONAL, AND THE STATE, of the following assets; regarding the convicted person [Nombre 001]: A property located in [...], located on the following farms and plans, registration [Valor 014], [Valor 014], [Valor 015], [Valor 016], [Valor 017], and [Valor 018], plans [Valor 019], [Valor 020], [Valor 021], [Valor 022], and [Valor 023] (in favor of the ICD); Sixteen cellular telephones, with their respective SIM cards and other accessories seized through seizure reports (actas) 097375, 097375, 097375, 097375, 097376, 097376, 097375, 97379, 97379, 97379, 097376, 0103618, 0052207, 0052209, 0052211, and 97379; An Apple brand tablet, seized through seizure report 097376; An Apple watch Nike brand watch, seizure report 097376 (All the above in favor of the ICD); A cash amount of ¢3,156,000.00 (three million one hundred fifty-six thousand colones) and 3247.00 (three thousand two hundred forty-seven dollars) and 30.00 Euros (Thirty euros), seizure reports numbers 097380 and 00535048 (forfeiture in favor of the Tesorería Nacional); A black bulletproof vest with no visible brand or numbering, seizure report 097377 (forfeiture in favor of the state and its destruction is ordered); A laptop computer seized through seizure report number 097379; A black GoPro brand video and photo camera, seizure report 97379; Three watches of apparent TOUS brand, seized through seizure report 097373; A gold chain, approximately 54 centimeters long, with an apparent gold cross-shaped pendant with what appear to be precious stones inlaid on its four sides, seizure report 097377 (all the above in favor of the ICD); Four pistol-type firearms, two of them Glock brand, one Smith & Wesson, and one Taurus brand, seized through seizure reports 097374, 097378, 097378, and 097373 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the State, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Dirección General de Armas y Explosivos); Ammunition, seizure report 097373, 097374, 097378, 0053506 (forfeiture and destruction are ordered); A USB device, seized through seizure report 97377 (its forfeiture and destruction are ordered); An all-terrain automobile, four doors, Toyota brand, Land Cruiser style, Prado, Beige color, circulation license plate [Valor 024], seizure report 0053503; A Pick Up type vehicle, Mitsubishi brand, L200 sportero style, 2015 model, circulation license plate [Valor 025], seizure report 0053502; A Honda brand motorcycle, XR190CT model, metal plate [Valor 026], seizure report 0053509; A Yamaha brand motorcycle, WR450F model, blue color, metal plate [Valor 028], seizure report 0053509; A Yamaha brand motorcycle, WR450F model, blue color, metal plate [Valor 027], seizure report 0053509 (All the above vehicles in favor of the ICD); A stationary metal exercise machine; A black stationary exercise machine, Everlast brand, with chain accessories and a punching bag; An elliptical metal bicycle, gray color, with the legend FDC19; A wooden King-type bed, all the above regarding seizure report 0053505 (in favor of the ICD); Two wooden King-type beds, natural color; An 86-inch LG brand flat-screen television; A black matrimonial wooden bed, all the above regarding seizure report 0053505 (in favor of the ICD); An LG brand flat screen, a second Hitachi brand screen (all in favor of the ICD); A Hitachi brand flat screen, all these regarding seizure report 0103617 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the ICD); A total cash amount of ¢84,000 (eighty-four thousand colones) and $305.00 (three hundred five dollars), seizure report 091827 (forfeiture in favor of the Tesorería Nacional); An ASUS brand laptop computer, model GL7040, serial number K4NRCV04E9811, with its respective base with fans and cables; A desktop computer, black color, with serial number 1616C114500283, also a black monitor, MSI brand, and its respective power and connection cables, these last according to seizure report 091828 (in favor of the ICD); Three video game chairs, one green with black with the legend Scorpion, another black with yellow with the legend \"Igaming,\" and the other black with red, with the legend \"Gamdias,\" seizure report 091829 (in favor of the ICD); A three-door refrigerator, LG brand, series MEZ66414020, silver color, Inverter Linear model, with dents on all sides, seizure report 091832 (in favor of the ICD); A micro bus type vehicle, Hyundai brand, H1 style, brown color, circulation license plates [Valor 029], engine number D4CEND305843 and chassis number KMJWA37KBEU579386, seizure report No. 091832 (in favor of the ICD); An Hp brand laptop computer, black color, model 15-DA0006LA with its respective charger, seizure report No. 0052211 (in favor of the ICD); A TCL brand television screen, gray color, model 65P1USI, with its respective TCL brand remote control, seizure report No. 0052212 (in favor of the ICD); An LG brand television screen, black color, model 60UK6200SA, series 906RMAQ3J248, seizure report No. 0052187 (in favor of the ICD); A ZIF brand television screen, black color, model Z55Y-065, serial number K-16050, seizure report No. 0052213 (in favor of the ICD); A HAIER brand television screen, black color, model LE55b8500DA, seizure report No. 0052214 (in favor of the ICD); A SANKEY brand television screen, black color, model Cled 5051D3, with its respective control, seizure report No. 0052188 (in favor of the ICD); A TCL brand television screen, black color, model 65P1USI, with its respective remote control, seizure report No. 0052189 (in favor of the ICD); and a black piece of furniture with an approximate measurement of 212 cm long, 112 cm high, and 50 cm deep, 09 drawers in total, 1 small, 2 large, and 6 medium, all with their bronze-colored handles, located through object number 412457 (in favor of the ICD). Regarding the sentenced individuals [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], and ([Nombre 013]), the forfeiture of the following assets is ordered: A Huawei brand cellular phone, black color, IMEI number 866223030330196, Sim card with no visible brand with the numbering 8950604402808424655, and a Samsung brand micro SD card, seizure report 093949 (in favor of the ICD); A Samsung brand cellular phone, blue color, with IMEI number 357716087681490, with a white Sim card with no visible brand with the numbering 8950604401712850476F, and an 8GB black micro SD card, seizure report 093949 (in favor of the ICD); A black signal device with the legend \"4T-006\" series 021635 with its respective charger, five antennas, and a vehicle current charger, all inside a box (in favor of the ICD); A Beretta brand pistol-type firearm with the serial number filed off, with die-pressed number 666 on the barrel part, with a black magazine (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the State, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Dirección General de Armas y Explosivos); 15 unfired 9mm caliber rounds (forfeiture and destruction), Three hundred eighty-nine unfired 7.62 x 39 caliber rounds (forfeiture and destruction); A steel plate or die with a pattern of circles on the lower part (forfeiture and destruction), all seized through seizure report No. 093948; A 9x19 caliber pistol-type firearm, black color, Taurus brand, series TF056301 with a black magazine (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the State, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Dirección General de Armas y Explosivos) and 16 unfired 9mm caliber rounds (forfeiture and destruction), seizure report 093950; A 9x19 caliber pistol-type firearm, black color, Glock brand, series PFA677 with a black magazine with a capacity for 16 rounds and two black magazines each with a capacity for 30 rounds (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the State, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Dirección General de Armas y Explosivos) with 21 unfired 9x19 caliber rounds (forfeiture and destruction), seizure report 093950; A 9mm caliber pistol-type firearm, black color, Beretta brand, series 1108590, a black magazine for 15 rounds, and a sound suppressor (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the State, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Dirección General de Armas y Explosivos) with 15 unfired rounds (forfeiture and destruction), seized through seizure report No. 0052119; Three hundred twenty unfired 5.56 caliber rounds (forfeiture and destruction), 3 magazines and an extra-capacity magazine (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the State, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Dirección General de Armas y Explosivos) seized through seizure report No. 0052119; A .40 caliber magazine with a capacity of 28 rounds and containing 13 unfired .40 caliber rounds (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the State, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, Dirección General de Armas y Explosivos and the destruction of the rounds) seized through seizure report No. 093948; Five hundred twenty-dollar American bills for a total of $10,000.00 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the Tesorería Nacional), seized through seizure report No. 0052120. Regarding the sentenced individuals [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029], the forfeiture of the following assets is ordered: A gray Huawei brand cellular phone, model Huawei MLA-L02, no visible IMEI, a black Nokia brand cellular phone with IMEI number 352905101877359, with a SIM card, Movistar brand with the numbering 8950604001911308753F, seized through seizure report No. 0085581 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the ICD); A total cash amount of ¢323,000.00 colones, Three Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand Colones, seized through seizure reports No. 0085582 and No. 005584 (forfeiture in favor of the Tesorería Nacional); An Apple brand cellular phone, iPhone model, pink color, IMEI 355734070780270 with a SIM card with no visible brand with the numbering 8950604302807581416, a Samsung brand cellular phone, black color, with IMEI 355286105100636, IMEI #2 355286105100644, with a Movistar SIM card with the numbering 8950604001907110389F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand, 4GB, seized through seizure report No. 0085585 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the ICD); A Huawei brand cellular phone, black color, IMEI 866368040451035 with a SIM card, Claro brand with the numbering 3950603018885857562F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand, 4GB, seized through seizure report No. 0085585.\n\nRegarding the sentenced individual [Name 030], the forfeiture (comiso) of the following assets is ordered: A Huawei brand telephone, blue, with IMEI #1: 869892042128470, IMEI #2: 869892042148486, with a Claro SIM card numbered 8950603019910340834F, a Samsung brand telephone, blue, with IMEI number 359770/10/853192/7, with a Kolbi SIM card numbered 9506010919112543185; a Samsung brand telephone, red, with IMEI number 359770/10/648523/3 with a Kolbi SIM card numbered 9506010919112767917; a Samsung brand telephone, black, with IMEI #1: 359060/09/653228/9, IMEI #2: 359061/09/653228f7, with SIM card numbered 8950604302809752916; an IPhone brand cellular phone, black, with a broken screen, with no visible serial number or IMEI, with a Kolbi SIM card numbered 9506010919112612634, all of the latter seized via seizure record (acta de secuestro) No. 0103877 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the ICD); a total amount of cash money of $517 (Five hundred seventeen dollars) seized via seizure record 0103878 (in favor of the ICD); a Samsung brand Tablet, grey, model BT-PS100, with IMEI number 354077/05122539819, a Samsung brand telephone, black, containing a Kolbi SIM card numbered 9506011113211672736 and a 4GB Kingston brand SD card, an iPhone brand telephone, black, with IMEI number 012851001506544 without a SIM card. A Samsung brand telephone, black, with IMEI number 355878105/66783512 with a Movistar SIM card numbered 8950604202704339761, a Nokia brand telephone, black, model N8-00, all the foregoing seized via seizure record No. 0103879 (in favor of the ICD); a 16GB ADATA brand USB storage device, a 16GB Kingston DTSE-9 brand USB storage device, an 8GB Sandisk brand USB storage device. A 2GB Kingston Datatravelier brand USB storage device, an 8GB microSD card. Two Adata brand microSD cards of 8GB each, a 2GB Kingston microSD card, a 16GB Kingston brand microSD card, a 16GB Samsung brand microSD card, a 128GB Radioshack brand microSD card, an Adata Superior SH02 brand portable hard drive, black and white, all of the latter seized via seizure record No. 0103880 (in favor of the ICD); a black k18 model GPS detector with its respective charger and antenna, seized in record No. seizure 01033881 (in favor of the ICD); a grey iPhone brand cellular phone with IMEI number 359234060064211 with a Movistar SIM card numbered 8950644027401423570, according to seizure record No. 0103883 (in favor of the ICD); A Samsung brand flat screen, black, with serial number 086M3CBMA08590E with its respective wall mount, a Samsung brand curved television screen, black, with serial number 07CU3CCDK809440D with its respective wall mount, both objects seized via seizure record No. 0103885 (in favor of the ICD); two hundred four 9.9 millimeter caliber rounds, thirty-one .25 millimeter caliber rounds, two hundred 5.56 millimeter caliber rounds, thirty-three .40 millimeter caliber rounds, one hundred 7.62x39 millimeter caliber rounds, and four 7.7x26 millimeter caliber rounds, objects seized via seizure record No. 092869 (forfeiture and destruction is ordered); a total of two million five thousand colones (¢ 2,005,000 colones) seized via seizure record No. 0103884 (forfeiture in favor of the National Treasury). Regarding [Name 046] (deceased), the seizure of the following assets is ordered: A Sig Sauer brand pistol-type firearm and a magazine, objects seized via seizure record 30266 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the State, Ministry of Public Security, General Directorate of Arms and Explosives); 15 unfired 9mm caliber rounds (forfeiture and destruction); A Huawei brand cellular telephone, with SIM card, and an Apple brand cellular telephone, with SIM card (for both objects, forfeiture and destruction is ordered); an Apple brand iPhone-style cell phone, with SIM card, according to seizure record No. 30267 (forfeiture in favor of the ICD); A Glock brand 9 mm caliber firearm magazine and one hundred twenty-seven 9mm caliber rounds, according to seizure record No. 30268 (forfeiture and destruction); A total amount of cash money of four million six hundred twenty-three thousand colones, according to seizure record No. 30269 (forfeiture in favor of the ICD); four apparently gold rings, an apparently gold bracelet, and a chain with an apparently gold pendant, seized via seizure record No. 30270 (forfeiture in favor of the ICD); A Samsung brand screen with a remote control, seized via seizure record No. 30268 (in favor of the ICD); A white video recorder, mouse, power cable, and HDMI cable, seized via seizure record No. 30270 (in favor of the ICD); A long-sleeved black shirt, size M, with the legend \"Policía PCD\" and the Costa Rican flag, a black bulletproof vest, Blindajes Colombianos brand, numbering 170418, and a black bulletproof vest, Second Chance brand, objects seized via seizure record No. 30271 (forfeiture and destruction); a blue-colored vehicle, year 2017, metal license plates, [Value 030], seized via seizure record No. 0076215 (in favor of the ICD). Regarding the convicted person [Name 010], the forfeiture of the following assets is ordered: A Huawei brand Leica-style cell phone, black, with two IMEIs and a SIM card, and a Samsung brand cellular telephone, grey, with two IMEIs and a SIM card, seized via record No. 0085541 (in favor of the ICD); a total amount of cash money of ¢ 1,611,000.00 colones (one million six hundred eleven thousand colones) seized via records No. 85542 and 85543, (forfeiture in favor of the National Treasury); a Samsung brand cell phone, black, a Samsung brand cell phone, white, and a Samsung brand tablet, black, objects seized via seizure record number 85542 (in favor of the ICD), A Samsung brand cellular telephone, gold-colored, in poor condition (forfeiture and destruction) and a Huawei brand cellular telephone, blue (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the ICD), both objects seized via record 85543; a Swann brand recorder, black, with its respective cables, seized via record No. 85544. Regarding the sentenced individual [Name 016], the forfeiture of the following assets is ordered: A Huawei brand cellular telephone, blue with purple, in fair condition, SIM card; a grey Huawei brand cellular telephone; A black Samsung brand cellular telephone, a grey Samsung brand cellular telephone, the foregoing objects seized via record No. 74700 (forfeiture of all is ordered in favor of the ICD); A total amount of cash money of ¢3,321,000.00 (three million three hundred twenty-one thousand colones), and $60 (sixty dollars), seized via records No. 0074700, 097371, and 097372 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the National Treasury); A pink Samsung brand cellular telephone with a broken screen, seized via record No. 097371 (in favor of the ICD); a red Samsung A10 brand cellular telephone, seized via record No. 97371 (in favor of the ICD). Regarding the following assets described in the accusatory instrument, charged acts 6.13, the Court orders their forfeiture, but not with respect to the convicted individual [Name 016], but rather from the sentenced individual [Name 004], since it was from him that they were seized (see search and seizure record from pages 2269 to 2275 of Volume V of the Investigation, seizure records numbers 0074654, 0074655, 0074656, 0074657 and 0074658) and they are: a red Samsung A10 brand cellular telephone, a black Huawei brand cellular telephone model JKM-LX3, with a broken screen in fair condition, with its black 16gb Sandisk SD card and SIM card, a black Huawei brand cellular telephone model JKM-LX3, with a black 51)8613 Adita brand card, with SIM card; A black Huawei brand cellular telephone with two IMEIs in fair condition with a white and red Claro SIM card, without an SD card; A white digital video recorder with serial number D63292428 with its respective power adapter (Forfeiture of all the foregoing is ordered in favor of the ICD); A non-lethal glock-type 9mm pistol, black; 35 gold-colored rounds with the legend blazer 9mm luger brand, two unfired 12 gauge super x brand rounds, western (forfeiture and destruction is ordered). Regarding the convicted individual ([Name 019]), the forfeiture of the following assets is ordered: A white Samsung Duos brand cellular telephone, with a Kolbi SIM card; A black LG brand cellular telephone with its respective battery and cover; a black Huawei brand cellular telephone, with SIM and 8 GB micro SD; A black Apple brand iPhone model cellular telephone, seized via record No. 0085593 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the ICD), An HS-K brand electronic scale, grey and black, with its respective charger, seized via record No. 0085593 (forfeiture is ordered in favor of the ICD); a total amount of cash money of ¢359,000.00 (three hundred fifty-nine thousand colones), seized via seizure record No. 0085594 (forfeiture in favor of the National Treasury), a white Apple brand iPhone model cellular telephone, with a Movistar SIM card, seized via record No. 0085595 (in favor of the ICD), a black Samsung brand cell phone, a 32 GB Kingston memory card, and a Movistar SIM, seized via record No. 0085593 (in favor of the ICD). In the same vein, the forfeiture in favor of the ICD of the following asset is ordered: a Toyota brand vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style, license plate [Value 031], seized via record No. 01240020. Regarding the following vehicles, forfeiture is ordered in favor of the ICD, and the registration annotation of the same is ordered before the Public Registry of Property, Section of Movable Assets, and to enforce what is ordered in this judgment, the seizure of said vehicles is ordered and communicated to the Criminal Records Section of the Judicial Investigation Agency, for what may concern them; the vehicles are: a Volkswagen brand vehicle, Jetta MK6 style, license plate [Value 032], year 2013, black; a BMW brand vehicle, X5 style, license plate No. [Value 033], silver-colored, year 2014; a Ford brand vehicle, Ranger style, license plate [Value 034], year 2017, orange-colored; a Toyota brand vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado T style, 2014 model, beige-colored, with license plate [Value 035]. With regard to the forfeited monies described above and the sums of money regarding the frozen or immobilized accounts, described below; based on the amendment introduced to the text of Article 85 of Law No. 7786 (8204) by means of Law No.\n\n10495, called “EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR LIQUIDITY”, published in Supplement No. 114 to Gazette No. 110, of Tuesday, June 18, 2024, orders that the monies seized in this judgment be placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Finance, National Treasury, as judicial depositary, who is responsible for their administration within the Public Sector Accounts System (Sistema de Cuentas del Sector Público, SCSP); accordingly, it is ordered that said monies be deposited in the following accounts:\n\n[Value 057], account name PJ Decomisos Ley 10495 – Art 40, subsection e) in Colones; [Value 058], account name, PJ Decomisos Ley 10495 – Art 40, subsection e) in Dollars; [Value 059], account name, PJ Comisos Ley 10495 – Art 40, subsection e), in Colones; [Value 060], account name PJ Comisos Ley 10495 – Art 40, subsection e) in Dollars.\n\nBeing the following accounts and amounts of money:ENTITY | IDENTIFICA- TION | NAME | RELA- TION | PRODUCT | AMOUNT FROZEN CU- RRENCY | Banco de Costa Rica | [Valor 036] |
[Name 001] | Owner |
[Valor 039] | ₡ 2 945 312,51 | Banco Popular | [Valor 037] |
[Name 015] | Owner | Does not indicate | ₡ 1,92 | Banco de Costa Rica | [Valor 038] |
[Name 030] | Owner |
[Valor 180] | ₡ 3 474 775,76 | Banco Nacional | [Valor 038] |
[Name 030] | Owner |
[Valor 181] | ₡ 9 355 158,62 | Scotiabank | [Valor 038] |
[Name 030] | Owner | [Valor 182] | ₡ 92 044,72 |
Scotiabank | [Valor 038] |
[Name 030] | Owner | CDP No.
[Valor 183] | ₡ 10 000 000,00 | Banco de Costa Rica | [Valor 040] |
[Name 022] | Owner |
[Valor 184] | ₡ 112 197,91 | Bac San José | [Valor 040] |
[Name 022] | Owner | [Valor 185] | ₡ 98 000,01 | Banco Nacional | [Valor 040] |
[Name 022] | Owner |
[Valor 186] | ₡ 98,93 | III.- Having verified the respective deliberation in accordance with the provisions of article 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), this Criminal Sentence Appeals Chamber (Cámara de Apelación de Sentencia Penal) considered the issues raised in the challenges. IV.- The pertinent legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings. Drafted by the Criminal Sentence Appeals Judge Hernández Leiva; and, WHEREAS (CONSIDERANDO): - By means of resolutions No. 2025-0003, dated 09:30 hours on April 29, 2025 (cf. folios 7702 to 7705) and No. 2025-0005, dated 15:40 hours on May 6, 2025 (cf. folios 7782 to 7783), this Chamber admitted for processing the appeals filed by Master Francisco Mena Ayales (cf. folios 7099 to 7192) and Licentiate Luis Cubillo Pacheco (cf. folios 7193 to 7216), both representing [Nombre 001]; Doctor José Pablo Badilla Villanueva, representing [Nombre 030] (cf. folios 7217 to 7282); Master Manuel Soto Aguilar representing [Nombre 016] (cf. folios
\n\n7314 to 7340); attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, representing the accused [Name 010] and ([Name 019]) (cf. folios 7405 to 7448); Marilén Solórzano Hernández, Master, representing [Name 029] (cf. folios 7451 to 7464), [Name 004] (cf. folios 7466 to 7470), and [Name 026] (cf. folios 7472 to 7478); Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, Master, representing ([Name 013]), [Name 022], and [Name 015] (cf. folios 7480 to 7494); the accused persons [Name 019] (cf. folios 7092 to 7097); [Name 026] (cf. folio 7341 to 7346); [Name 029] (cf. folios 7347 to 7351); [Name 004] (cf. folios 7352 to 7355); [Name 007] (cf. folios 7356 to 7359); [Name 030] (cf. folios 7360 to 7404); the third parties with an interest in the proceeding [Name 045] (cf. folios 7067 to 7091) and attorney René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez representing [Name 037] (cf. folios\n\n7283 to 7305); against judgment no. 007-2024 of 10:00 a.m. on November 21, 2024, handed down by the Specialized Criminal Court for Organized Crime (Tribunal Penal Especializado en Delincuencia Organizada), whereby criminal liability was declared for [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 016] and [Nombre 019], for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking; for [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 016] and [Nombre 019] for the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and for [Nombre 010], for the crime of simple homicide. As a result of the foregoing declaration, it imposed the following prison sentences: 40 years on [Nombre 001]; 30 years on [Nombre 030]; 24 years on [Nombre 029]; 20 years on ([Nombre 013]), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015]; 10 years on [Nombre 004], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 026] and 28 years on [Nombre 010] (cf. pp. 6517 to 7063). Additionally, the joinder (adhesión) filed by [Nombre 044], in the capacity of interested third party, was admitted (cf. pp. 7534 to 7539).\n\nII. Composition of the Sentence Appeals Court of the Specialized Jurisdiction for Organized Crime (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia de la Jurisdicción Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada) to hear the present matter.\n\nThe knowledge of the appeals filed by the parties in this case corresponded to the First Section of the Sentencing Appeals Court (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia) of the Specialized Jurisdiction for Organized Crime (Jurisdicción Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada), composed at the time of issuing this ruling by judges Andrea Renauld Castro, Mónica Hernández Leiva and judge Max Antonio Escalante Quirós. The latter was not present at the oral hearing held on May 9 and 12, 2025, as on that occasion the composition of the court was completed by judge María Milagro Granados García. Subsequently, through a report visible on folios 7830 to 7832, judge Granados García presented an excuse for having participated in the adjudication of a case related to the present one. This excuse was accepted in a ruling at 11:50 a.m. on July 1, 2025, as observed on folio 7833. In cases such as the one before us, where the composition of the collegiate body issuing the final ruling partially differs from that which participated in the oral hearing, this Chamber applies the criterion established by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in ruling No. 2007-17553, of 12:23 p.m. on November 30, 2007. It determined that: \"[…] *it is constitutionally valid that in those cassation hearings or oral hearings where evidence is not received orally or where the parties' arguments are already in writing, without anything new being contributed, other judges, different from those who participated in the hearing, may take part in making the decision, if and only if they are capable of doing so and there are justified reasons (which must be recorded) that prevent those who were at the oral hearing from meeting on a near date to study and resolve the matter*\". In the present case, it has been verified that, in the referenced hearing, the parties limited themselves to presenting the arguments that were already in writing and no evidence was produced orally, since the only evidence admitted was documentary in nature and was previously available to the parties. Furthermore, as already indicated, there is an impediment preventing judge Granados, who was present at the hearing, from participating in the issuance of this ruling. Based on the considerations set forth, the variation in the composition of the court is not only appropriate but also necessary, in order to provide a response to the parties within a reasonable time and thus give effect to the principle of prompt and complete justice.\n\n2. **Jurisdiction.** In this matter, the acquittal issued in favor of the accused [Name 033] for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was not challenged, nor was that ordered in favor of the defendant [Name 007] for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). By virtue of the foregoing, in accordance with Articles 446 and 447 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), they shall not be subject to review by this Sentencing Appeals Court (Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia), a limit set by the legislator for the assumption of the respective jurisdiction, in accordance with the principle of finality of judgments and no reform to the detriment.\n\n3. **Oral hearing.** At the request of the appellants, an oral hearing was held on May 9 and 12, 2025.\n\nIn the first of the sessions, the private defense attorneys Francisco Mena Ayales and Luis Antonio Cubillo Pacheco presented their arguments in defense of the accused [Name 001]; Víctor Raúl Obando Mendoza, representing [Name 016] and René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, as representative of the interested third parties [Name 037] and [Name 045]. Attorney Víctor Ramón Rodríguez de Sárraga, who provides the technical defense for [Name 019], [Name 007] and [Name 010], as well as attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández, private defender of the defendants [Name 029], [Name 004] and [Name 026], also appeared, but did not present their oral arguments, instead conforming to what was stated in the challenges already submitted in writing.\n\nIn the session of May 12, 2025, Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva presented in defense of the defendant [Name 030]. The private defense attorney Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, who represents [Name 013], [Name 022] and [Name 015], justified his absence and requested the rescheduling of the proceeding; however, he ultimately withdrew from the hearing. The details of what occurred are recorded in the audio and video files 180001041219PE-0905202513223-2_Multi—0, 180001041219PE-09052025101533-2_Multi—0 and 180001041219PE-12052025101223-2_Multi—0.\n\nV. Claims related to the violation of the principles of impartiality and natural judge. Given the need to first address claims that could affect all defendants, it is necessary to change the order of resolution of the grounds composing the appeals filed by the parties. Fifth ground of appeal filed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Name 001]. He alleges \"Violation of the principle of natural judge. Violation of the principle of objectivity and impartiality.\" He indicates that Judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez should have excused himself from trying [Name 001]; however, he ignored his legal duty with the sole purpose of convicting him. As background, he points out that on May 2, 2024, before the trial started, Lic. Simón Angulo recused Judges Christian Álvarez Campos and Leonardo Brenes Gómez, because they were among the prosecutors authorized to access the content of telephone interceptions and, in the case of the former, also because he received a police report.\n\nIt notes that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) filed a recusal motion (recusación) against the aforementioned judge and that the prosecutor in charge stated “well, the Public Prosecutor's Office had it already prepared,” which in the defense's view may imply “that the prosecutorial body was already in agreement with Judge Leonardo Brenes to recuse him and thus guarantee that he would continue hearing the case, because the prosecutor himself even states that this incident has almost no importance, and furthermore that the Public Prosecutor's Office already knew how the Trial Court would resolve said recusal motion, which could not be more obscure for the rights of the individuals to be judged.” It asserts that Judge Brenes Gómez should have disclosed that in 2018, when the investigation against the accused was underway, he filed an accusation in which he stated that his client and [Nombre 050] were drug traffickers; however, he omitted that action and kept the information to himself, because making it public would have justified a recusal motion against him. It notes that the court accepted the excuse against Judge Álvarez and transcribes, in extenso, the reasoning that justified it. It asserts that the defendant had no opportunity to enjoy a fair trial due to the involvement of Judge Brenes Gómez, even though the witnesses do not refer to any criminal activity on his part. It states that, from February 2016 to May 2017, under case file 16000045-1219-PE, a criminal organization dedicated, in theory, to drug trafficking was investigated, in which [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] appeared. It indicates that “Within said investigation, there initially existed information that the officer of the Drug Control Police (Policía de Control de Drogas) of the Ministry of Public Security, [Nombre 057], in charge of said investigation up to that point, had procured impunity for the investigated persons, and for this reason a criminal case was opened against him under case file number 16-000137-1219-PE.” It notes that the case was handled by the then-prosecutor Leonardo Brenes Gómez, who accused the Drug Control Police agent of the crime of procuring impunity (procuración de impunidad).\n\nIt details that the accusation was drafted by Brenes Gómez and in it he described his personal considerations about [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050]. It transcribes what it identifies as the second and seventh paragraphs of the accusatory piece, then it refers that the actions committed by a police agent can create anger in the prosecutor's office, because drugs could not be seized as stated by Brenes Gómez, which were supposedly located on a farm. It highlights that Brenes Gómez stated that his client and [Nombre 050] were part of said criminal organization as drug traffickers; moreover, it referred to the type of drug, specifically hydroponic marijuana, cocaine, and synthetic. It considers that the aforementioned judge should have recused himself so as not to be part of the court that judged his client.\n\nHe states that, by virtue of the fact that the accusation was drafted in 2018, Judge Brenes Gómez knew that in that year his client was being investigated in this preliminary inquiry, which he asserts \"from personal experience, where prosecutors, within the same unit, share case details among colleagues, share information from one case to another if necessary and useful.\" He notes that in the first intervention order, Brenes Gómez was authorized to carry out any investigative diligence. He points out \"that the same judge (at that time a prosecutor), at the moment of affirming in his accusation against the police officer, that my client and Mr. [Name 050] were drug traffickers, also knew details of the new investigation, which he himself adjudicated and sentenced, the sentence being appealed today.\" He argues that to accuse the former police officer, it was necessary to become aware of the content of the information contained in the case file in which his client was being investigated, which is detailed on folio 121 of the case, because the investigating judge handed over all the communications and transcripts of the case against his client. He argues that in the psyche of a prosecutor, an entire criminal picture is created of the persons who are being or have been investigated. He analyzes that the trial court, when resolving the challenge filed against Judge Cristian, stated \"what is in Don Cristian's psyche?\" [sic]. He deems it valid to pose the same question regarding Judge Brenes Gómez, who had unrestricted access to the evidence.\n\nHe points out that in the accusation, Brenes Gómez referred to the drug sale points, specifically \"Las Tenis\", \"Garabito\", and \"El Pani\", located in León XIII, Tibás, which are the same ones under controversy in this case, which is why he states that Judge Brenes Gómez knew the details of the investigation carried out at that time against his client and [Nombre 050]. He indicates that it is not possible to dismiss the possibility that the judge had a personal conviction that [Nombre 001] was a drug trafficker, based on his prior knowledge. He notes that \"*On two occasions recusal motions were filed against him, it is strange and curious that he did not remember the statements he made at that time regarding [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050]*\". He deems it possible that the full conviction about [Nombre 001] led him to convince the other judges to issue a conviction, even for crimes that were not charged against some of the defendants. He points out that the judge's omission implies harm to the State's coffers due to the high cost of the trial. He adds that the accused has exceeded 4 years in pretrial detention (prisión preventiva), which he describes as an act of torture, especially because a retrial (reenvío) means his situation will not be resolved soon. He emphasizes that in this case it is not possible to consider that the accused persons were tried by an impartial authority. He asserts that the procedural tools of judicial self-disqualification (excusa) and recusal (recusación) were not used by Judge Brenes Gómez, to the detriment of his client and of [Nombre 050], who was tried in absentia.\n\nRegarding the grievance, it states that the principle of natural judge, impartiality, and objectivity was violated, which resulted in a conviction and the imposition of a custodial sentence. It requests that the judgment be annulled and a retrial (juicio de reenvío) be ordered; furthermore, that the accused's release be ordered. It considers that the order to extend the pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) is also tainted, having been ordered by a court that was not impartial. It details that the pretrial detention period served by its client has already reached half the sentence, and therefore requests that this matter be assessed. It offers evidence in support of its action.\n\nFourth ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) against the judgment filed by Máster Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense counsel for [Nombre 016]. \"Violation of the principles of natural judge, impartiality, and objectivity.\" The technical defense of [Nombre 016] alleges failure to observe articles 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 26 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 14.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, articles 35 and 42 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and numbers 6, 55, and 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). It argues that, at the trial hearing on May 2, 2024, as the trial was about to begin, the then technical defense counsel Simón Angulo Arredondo recused judges Christian Álvarez Campos and Leonardo Brenes Gómez based on the provisions of subsection f) of number 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). Regarding the reason for the recusal, it indicates that it was alleged that both were among the judges authorized to hear the interception of communications. Furthermore, with respect to Judge Álvarez, it was also stated that he had received a progress report on the investigation in the year 2018.\n\nIn his appeal, Mr. Soto Aguilar transcribes the reasons given by attorney Angulo Arredondo and by the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office on the point, as well as the reasons why Judge Brenes Gómez rejected the recusal motion filed against him (cf. fs. 7326 front – 7328 front). The defense counsel points out that, contrary to Judge Álvarez Campos, who reported on his specific involvement and considered that he should recuse himself from hearing the case, Judge Leonardo Brenes processed, in his capacity as prosecutor, case no. 16-000137-1219-PE, brought against [Nombre 057], for procuring impunity. Said summary proceedings originated from case no. 16-000451219-PE, in which a criminal organization comprised of [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] was being investigated. The defense argues that, in case no. 16-000137-1219-PE, Judge Brenes Gómez —formerly a prosecutor— drafted an accusation in which he would have stated that [Nombre 017] and [Nombre 001], together with other persons, \"formed a criminal group dedicated exclusively to the commercialization of different unauthorized drugs […] in the localities of San José, Tibás, León XIII, in the neighborhoods known as 'Las Tenis', 'Garabito' and 'El Pani' and the province of Limón\" [sic] (cf. 7329 front of the main file). Furthermore, in points 7 and 9 of the referenced accusation, it was indicated that on June 16, 2016, [Nombre 057] left a communication open in which the planning of a raid was being discussed, with the aim of procuring the impunity of those investigated in case no. 16-00045-1219-PE, among them [Nombre 001], and that the raid was aborted because one of those investigated learned of the operation, which caused the drugs stored at Finca Dondonia in Limón to be moved to another location (cf. f. 7329 back).\n\nFrom the above, the appellant infers that by the year 2018, when he drafted the accusation in the case against [Nombre 057], Judge Brenes Gómez knew that both [Nombre 016] and [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 017] were being investigated in the case he later tried.\n\nHe adds that he even appears as authorized to manage any investigative diligence in the initial request for telephone intervention found on folio 6 of the first volume of the telephone intervention file, corresponding to the preliminary investigation under examination (No. 18-104-1219-PE). Based on this situation, the technical defense concludes that “at the moment of affirming in his accusation against the police agent that [Nombre 001] and my client Mr. [Nombre 050] were drug traffickers, he also knew details of the new investigation, which he himself tried and sentenced, the sentence being appealed today” (f. 7330 vto.). Mr. Soto Aguilar mentions various rulings in which it is affirmed that there must not be the slightest doubt about the impartiality of the judge, and that the list of grounds for excuse and recusal (excusa y recusación) is illustrative and not exhaustive (rulings No. 1146-05, 256-05, and 945-04 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; rulings No. 7531-97 and No. 4727-98 of the Constitutional Chamber, among others). He argues that, although the parties were unaware of Judge Leonardo Brenes’s performance as an instructing prosecutor in case No. 16000137-1219-PE, which is why they did not include it among the grounds for the recusal (recusación) filed against him, his intervention in this matter affected the fundamental rights of [Nombre 050], who, even in absentia, was tried for the reasons indicated in the first appeal claim against the sentence filed on behalf of [Nombre 016]. He indicates that the responsibility for the acts imputed to [Nombre 050] was the basis for the conviction handed down against his sister, [Nombre 016]. As a grievance, he maintains that a correct application of procedural and substantive norms would have led to the acquittal of his client. He requests that the appealed ruling be declared ineffective and, based on that, that a new trial be ordered (cfr. f. 7333 fte.). The complaints are declared without merit. The principle of the natural and impartial judge, derived from Articles 8.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 14.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is one of the fundamental pillars of due process. This guarantee ensures that every person subjected to a judicial process is tried by independent, objective judges with no personal interests in the case, that is, who have no personal connection to the cause, who have not previously compromised their judgment, and who harbor no prejudices in favor of or against any of the parties. It seeks to ensure that the administrator of justice acts with neutrality, guided solely by the law and the circumstances of the case, in order to proscribe arbitrariness. To fulfill this purpose, the assignment of cases must be based on objective and pre-established criteria. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has indicated that this principle has two dimensions: the subjective, which refers to the judge’s internal conviction and the absence of prejudice; and the objective, which refers to the verifiable circumstances or facts that may cast doubt on the judge’s impartiality.\n\nIn the case before us, the defenders of the parties [Name 001] and [Name 016] allege that this guarantee was violated by the intervention of Judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez, as part of the court that heard at trial the case brought against their clients. They point out several circumstances: (i) an agreement between the Public Prosecutor's Office and the aforementioned judge to process a motion for his disqualification and ensure that he continued hearing the case; (ii) the background of Judge Brenes Gómez, who served as a prosecutor when this preliminary investigation was being processed and was able to learn of its contents; (iii) the statements contained in the indictment in case 16-000045-1219-PE, prepared by Judge Brenes Gómez, in his capacity as prosecutor, in which the investigated parties [Name 001] and [Name 050] were alluded to as members of a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking. In order to respond to the complaint, it is necessary to recount relevant actions. The first thing that must be pointed out is that in this matter a previous call to oral and public trial was made, the holding of which was ordered between July 19 and October 30, 2023, as stated in vote no. 1-2023, at 2:11 p.m. on July 4, 2023 (cf. pages 82 to 83 of the admissibility hearing file). However, as a result of the filing of a judicial consultation on constitutionality by two of the judges in charge of the debate, specifically Freddy Calderón Chaves and Virginia Valverde Delgado, the proceeding was suspended (cf. pages 4591 to 4596 of the main file). As a result of the foregoing, the Public Prosecutor's Office sought the recusal of the entire court, composed of judges Freddy Calderón Chaves, Virginia Valverde Delgado and Leonardo Brenes Gómez, based on the fact that, in order to raise the consultation, they must have learned of the contents of the case file.\n\nIn the case of Judge Brenes Gómez, it was also reported that he appeared as authorized in the requests for interception of communications managed by the Fiscalía General de la República, despite the fact that he was not working for the Ministerio Público and that all of the actions pertaining to the investigation were carried out by prosecutor José Pablo Jiménez Trejos (cf. pp. 4691 to 4597 of the main case file). In the hearing of July 29, 2023, the Ministerio Público orally presented the recusal (recusación), as verified in the audio and video file 180001041219PE27072023094452-2_Multi—0. On that occasion, the prosecutor in charge emphasized that, even though the consultation was formulated only by Judges Calderón Chaves and Valverde Delgado, the recusal was filed against the entire panel, including Judge Brenes Gómez, because it was a collegiate court. It was added that, if Judge Brenes Gómez did not participate in the substantive discussion required for the filing of the consultation, the excusal (excusa) would also proceed because the court would have become disintegrated. He reiterated that the name of Judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez appeared in the requests for intervention of communications and stressed that the circumstance was reported in an exercise of transparency with the other parties in the proceeding. All of the defense attorneys present opposed the motion. The recused judges submitted a report, which is contained in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-27072023104926-2_Multi—2.\n\nAs relevant, Judge Brenes Gómez rejected the grounds for excuse, because he did not sign the constitutional consultation and was not familiar with the merits of the preliminary investigation. Regarding the fact that his name appeared among the authorized prosecutors in the documentation related to the communication interceptions, he clarified that in the past he served in the position of prosecutor of the Public Ministry and that in the year 2018 he was assigned to the Drug Trafficking Prosecutor's Office. He detailed that as of September 2018 he began judicial appointments; later he returned to the Public Ministry and conducted a trial from March 6 to May 16, 2019, in the locality of Alajuela; after June 10, 2019, he was again appointed judge and in May 2020 he transferred to the Third Chamber, where he served as a legal clerk and, while in that position, he was permanently appointed as a judge in the Courts of Justice of Pérez Zeledón. He clarified that he was not familiar with the content of this case, did not provide functional direction, and did not perform any action within it. By means of resolution 5-R-2023, of 2:30 p.m. on July 27, 2023, recorded in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-270720230241152_Multi—0, the Court of the Specialized Jurisdiction against Organized Crime, with a different composition, unanimously rejected the challenge filed against Judge Brenes Gómez. As grounds, it indicated that, contrary to what was alleged by the party filing the challenge, it is not necessary to learn the content of the case file in order to file a constitutional consultation. Regarding the appearance of the judge's name as authorized in the documentation related to the telephone interceptions, it indicated that the Public Ministry itself argued that Brenes Gómez did not participate in the investigation and, for that reason, the excuse was not proper. It also considered that, according to what was reported by Judge Brenes Gómez, in the year 2018 he was making appointments as a judge and in his capacity as a prosecutor he participated in a trial in Alajuela (cf. pp. 4666 to 4670).\n\nThe recusal motion against the remaining members of the tribunal was also rejected by majority vote; however, the trial was not held on that occasion but was rescheduled by resolution issued at 2:43 p.m. on March 11, 2024, which ordered it to be held from May 2 to June 24, 2024 (cf. f. 5006 of the main case file). On this new occasion, the trial was conducted by a panel composed of judges Christian Espinoza Pizarro, Leonardo Brenes Gómez, and Christian Álvarez Campos. At the first hearing, recorded in the audio and video file 180001041219PE02052024015315-2_Multi—0, the private defense attorney Simón Angulo Arredondo, who represented defendants [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 033], filed a recusal motion against judges Brenes Gómez and Álvarez Campos. Regarding the first of them, the only one relevant to the resolution of the appeal, he emphasized that he appeared as having authorized access to the case file and may have reviewed the information contained therein. He clarified that the judge had previously been recused for the same reason and had been retained in his position. The motion was supported by the private defense attorney Víctor Obando Mendoza, who represented [Nombre 016].\n\nOn the other hand, private defense counsel Luis Cubillo Pacheco, representing [Name 001], challenged judge Christian Álvarez Campos, but not judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez, regarding whom he expressly stated: \"this representation has raised absolutely nothing related to judge Leonardo Brenes.\" The Public Prosecutor's Office opposed the motion by pointing out, as relevant, the following: \"Clarify 3 important points: first, the challenge of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which was already discussed now in this hearing, was not discussed in the morning. There are two aspects regarding that challenge, aspect number one is that indeed the Public Prosecutor's Office had already alerted that Mr. Leonardo Brenes's name appeared in a request for telephone intervention in the case's proceedings, not because he handled the case, but because in the list of persons, potentially authorized, who could potentially intervene in the process, the names of all the Public Prosecutor's Office officials are included in the event that the official in charge of the case, in this case Pablo Jiménez, is unable to perform some task, because we are human and anyone can get sick or whatever, so the Public Prosecutor's Office always pre-authorizes all prosecutorial officials who at that time are appointed as such in the Narcotics Prosecutor's Office. That is why Leonardo appears in that initial intervention request, not because he had knowledge of the case, not because he participated in any proceeding, and not because he had knowledge or was briefed on the case, but the Public Prosecutor's Office had already alerted to that. So in that sense, to try at that time to correct procedures and resolve that topic once and for all, the Public Prosecutor's Office also has to be objective and it was under that objectivity that said incident was filed at that time, effectively as the Public Prosecutor's Office had already advanced it, in the sense that it was simply filed to correct; however, the Public Prosecutor's Office already outright handled the possibility that it would be resolved, as it was resolved, which was indeed, that it caused no prejudice to the processing of the case and specifically, to this trial, that Mr. Leonardo actively participated in the trial, in the debate, because he was never briefed on the process, that is, the same thing that is being alleged today by Mr. Simón is the same thing that at that time the Public Prosecutor had already advanced and had brought to the attention of the parties so that everyone knew about Leonardo's situation and his name in the request, and it was already resolved by the JEDO court, saying the challenge was rejected, indicating it does not proceed, because he was not briefed, it is simply a name in a document that has no relevance to the expediente, that has already been evaluated\" [sic] (emphasis added). The record in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-02052024034410-2_Multi—0 contains the report rendered by the challenged judges. At that time, Judge Brenes Gómez highlighted that the issue had already been previously resolved by another section of the court.\n\nFinally, in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-02052024034410-2_Multi—1, resolution no. 85-R-2024 of 15:24 hours on May 2, 2024, of the Tribunal Especializado en Delincuencia Organizada, is recorded, whereby the excuse filed against Judge Christian Álvarez was accepted and that filed against Judge Brenes Gómez was rejected. Regarding the latter, it was determined that the matter had been previously resolved by another panel of the tribunal, in resolution 5-R-2023, of 14:30 hours on July 27, 2023, and therefore a new ruling on the matter was not appropriate. From the entire account provided, several circumstances must be highlighted.\n\nThe first is that this Tribunal considers that the statement by the Ministerio Público, to the effect that it had “advanced” matters relating to the recusal, does not allow for the inference of any collusion between the prosecutor and Judge Brenes Gómez to manipulate what would be resolved in this new opportunity. The context in which that statement was made must be considered, since the prosecutor was recounting that, on a prior occasion, at his instance, a recusal against Judge Brenes Gómez was heard, which he pursued with the aim of informing the parties that the official's name appeared in some documents that were part of the case file, not because he considered that this circumstance compromised the judge's impartiality. That is, what emerges from the proceeding by the Ministerio Público is that its sole intention was to alert the parties and thus avoid future challenges, not because it considered that the removal of Judge Brenes Gómez was warranted. By virtue of the foregoing, within the horizon of possibilities that presented itself, the rejection of the proceeding was foreseeable, as indeed occurred. In no way can what the defense refers to be extracted, in the sense that there existed a collusive arrangement between the officials, which is why an assertion of that nature is clearly reckless and unfounded. It is worth recalling, for greater abundance, that the recused judge is not the one who determines his continued involvement or not in the hearing of a summary proceeding, but rather his intervention is limited to the rendering of a report in which he accepts or rejects the proceeding. Jurisdiction to resolve the incidental matter lies with the remaining members of the tribunal, when it concerns collegiate bodies, and in the specific case of the Tribunal de Juicio of the Jurisdicción Especializada contra la Delincuencia Organizada, with a collegiate panel, who, as already indicated, rejected the recusal.\n\nIn summary, no circumstance emerges that would cast doubt on the correct processing of the recusal (recusación) filed against Judge Brenes Gómez at the start of the trial of this summary proceeding. As a second aspect to address, with respect to the employment history of Judge Brenes Gómez and the possibility that he may have become aware of the content of this summary proceeding beforehand, this Court finds that there is also no objective evidence to support this. To respond to this argument and based on what has already been outlined, it is necessary to bring up what was stated by Judge Brenes Gómez in the report rendered on July 29, 2023, regarding the positions he held within the Judicial Branch (Poder Judicial) in 2018. He specifically reported that, starting in September 2018, he began his function as a judge, with various appointments to Judge 3 and Judge 4 positions. He detailed that in 2019 he continued in jurisdictional functions and that, in the capacity of prosecutor (fiscal), he conducted a trial in the locality of Alajuela from March 6 to May 16, 2019. Subsequently, he continued holding judge appointments; he was then appointed legal counsel (letrado) of the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) in May 2020, where he remained until he was finally appointed as a tenured judge of the Republic in the Trial Courts of Pérez Zeledón. Now, the first record of this summary proceeding in the case file consists of the preliminary report IP-297-EN-18, dated October 19, 2018, addressed to prosecutor Pablo Jiménez Trejos, of the Deputy Prosecutor's Office against Organized Crime, Complex Processing Division (cfr. pages 1 to 87 of the main dossier).\n\nIn the section \"Notitia criminis\" the report states \"As your authority is aware, in the month of September of this year we, the undersigned, communicated to you confidential information that entered our office in which we were informed about a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking […]\" (cf. f. 2 of the main case file). From the foregoing it can be deduced that, at the time this case formally entered the Adjunta de Narcotráfico Prosecutor's Office, with the filing of the first police report IP-297-EN-18, dated October 19, 2018, the judicial official Brenes Gómez was not working regularly in the Ministerio Público, given that he had begun his duties as a judge of the Republic. This latter aspect is relevant, because the appearance of the official Brenes Gómez as an authorized party in the telephone interceptions processed in this preliminary investigation, does not stem from his being involved in the investigation — there is no evidence to that effect — but rather from a judicial practice consisting of authorizing all officials of an office to perform various acts, as a precaution against the possibility that the person designated as the lead investigator may be unable to continue handling the matter. Based on the foregoing, there is no objective basis from which it can be derived that the official Brenes Gómez became aware of the contents of this case, when he held the status of prosecutor of the Ministerio Público, prior to his permanent appointment as a judge of the Republic. The third topic of interest refers to the accusation brought by Leonardo Brenes Gómez in the year 2018, in his capacity as prosecutor of the Ministerio Público, within preliminary investigation 16-000045-1219-PE. This Court considers that, contrary to what was alleged by the appellants, a compromise of his impartiality is not verified.\n\nThe defense states that when the official Leonardo Brenes Gómez held the position of prosecutor, he filed an accusation in which he asserted that [Name 001] and the co-defendant [Name 017] [Name 016] were drug traffickers, a circumstance about which he remained silent, even though he should have recused himself. In that regard, the appellant points out: \"Judge Leonardo Brenes should also have disclosed the circumstance that is now known and argued, (that in 2018, while serving as prosecutor and with another investigation already pending against my client and [Name 050], he filed an accusation in which he asserted that both individuals were drug traffickers)\" (cf. f. 7173 of the main file). Similarly, Master Manuel Soto Aguilar stated that \"with another investigation pending against my client [Name 050] and Mr. [Name 001], Judge Brenes Gómez filed an accusation in which he asserted that both individuals were drug traffickers; however, he omitted to disclose it because he knew the procedural consequences it would entail\" [sic] (cf. fs. 7328 front and back of the main file).\n\nBy resolution no. 2025-0005, issued at 3:40 p.m. on May 6, 2025, this Tribunal admitted as evidence the certified copy of case 16-000137-1219-PE, brought against [Nombre 057], which was offered by the private defense attorneys Francisco Mena Ayales and Manuel Soto Aguilar to support the present claim (cf. pp. 7782 to 7783). From that evidence, the accusation filed against [Nombre 057] for the crime of procuring impunity stands out, which was, in fact, prepared by the then-prosecutor Leonardo Brenes Gómez. The document was dated July 18, 2018, and the record shows that the case file was received by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José on July 20, 2018, to begin the intermediate stage (cf. pp. 21 to 30 of main file part 6 and 1 to 17 of main file part 7 according to the digital file). In addition, it is verified that the preliminary hearing of that summary proceeding was held on August 21, 2018, at which time the accused [Nombre 057] accepted an abbreviated special procedure (cf. pp. 370 to 371 of the digital file called Expediente completo digital). From the comparison of these dates, it can be inferred that, when the then-prosecutor Leonardo Brenes Gómez filed the accusation in case 16-000137-1219-PE against [Nombre 057] in the month of July 2018, the Public Prosecutor's Office did not yet have knowledge of the existence of the investigation of the present summary proceeding, because it was not until two months later, in September of that year, that the information was transmitted to the prosecutor José Pablo Jiménez, through functional direction—as detailed above—.\n\nThus, the assertion by the appellants that the official Brenes Gómez, at the time of drafting the accusation in summary proceeding (sumaria) 16-000137-1219-PE, had knowledge that his clients were being investigated in the present case has no basis. Furthermore, regarding the content of the accusation brought against [Nombre 057] in the summary proceeding (sumaria) 16-000137-1219-PE, the defense argues that the prosecutor at the time, Brenes Gómez, labeled [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] as drug traffickers, setting forth his personal considerations regarding them, in addition to mentioning types of drugs and locations where the criminal activity was carried out, data which coincide with the present summary proceeding (sumaria), which is why he should have recused himself. As has been outlined by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), the grounds for excuse and recusal (excusa y recusación) contained in Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) do not constitute an exhaustive list, but rather it is possible to evaluate other scenarios when doubts exist regarding the impartiality of the adjudicator. However, the doubt that gives rise to challenges of this nature cannot be any subjective suspicion, conjecture, or based on mere perceptions of the parties; rather, it must be reasonably and objectively founded, that is, it must be based on verifiable circumstances that, from the perspective of an impartial observer, could generate a legitimate fear regarding the judge's neutrality with respect to the proceeding. Starting from an objective system provided by law for the constitution of the courts of justice and the designation of judges, the good faith actions of the latter are presumed. In that regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Corte Interamericana sobre Derechos Humanos), in the case of Usón Ramírez vs. Venezuela, established that \"117 […] The personal or subjective impartiality is presumed unless there is proof to the contrary.\" The foregoing is relevant because, furthermore, the judicial system must protect itself from abuses that can lead to destabilizing judicial proceedings through unfounded recusals or challenges promoted by the parties. It is therefore necessary to strike an adequate balance between the right to an impartial judge and the integrity of the justice administration system. After a meticulous study of the complaint, as well as the documentation of interest, this Court considers that the defense is likewise incorrect on this point. It is necessary to contextualize the information derived from the evidence admitted for the resolution of the appeal. As already indicated, through resolution No. 2025-0005, of 3:40 p.m. on May 6, 2025, this Court admitted as evidence the certified copy of case 16-000137-1219-PE, against [Nombre 057], as a result of the offer made by private defense attorneys Francisco Mena Ayales and Manuel Soto Aguilar. In said summary proceeding (sumaria), the Public Ministry (Ministerio Público), represented by Leonardo Brenes Gómez, investigated and formulated an accusation against [Nombre 057], an investigator of the Drug Control Police (Policía de Control de Drogas), based on Article 62 of Law No. 8204, for procuring the impunity of persons under investigation in the summary proceeding (sumaria) 16-000045-1219-PE, among them [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050], for the alleged crime of drug trafficking. In the charging document (requerimiento acusatorio) it was stated, in relevant part, the following: \"2.\n\nIn the previously named Adjunta Contra la Delincuencia Organizada, in the period between February 2016 and May 2017, case number 16-000045-1219-PE was processed for the crime of Drug Trafficking, in which the following appeared as investigated parties: [Nombre 001] alias \"[Nombre 084]\", [Nombre 060] alias \"[Nombre 061]\", [Nombre 062] alias \"[Nombre 063]\", [Nombre 064], [Nombre 050] alias \"[Nombre 065]\", [Nombre 066] alias \"[Nombre 067]\", [Nombre 068] alias \"[Nombre 069]\", [Nombre 070] alias \"[Nombre 071]\", [Nombre 072] alias \"[Nombre 073]\", [Nombre 074] alias \"[Nombre 075]\", [Nombre 076] and [Nombre 077], who formed a criminal group dedicated exclusively to the commercialization of various unauthorized drugs, including hydroponic or cripy marijuana, cocaine hydrochloride, and synthetic drugs, in the localities of San José, Tibás, León XIII, in the neighborhoods known as \"Las Tenis,\" \"Garabito,\" and \"El Pani,\" and the province of Limón […] 7. Notwithstanding, on June 16, 2016, at around 9:25 a.m., the defendant [Nombre 057], with the aim of securing impunity for the investigated parties [Nombre 001] alias \"[Nombre 084]\", [Nombre 060] alias \"[Nombre 061]\", [Nombre 062] alias \"[Nombre 063]\", [Nombre 064], [Nombre 050] alias \"[Nombre 065]\", [Nombre 066] alias \"[Nombre 067]\", [Nombre 068] alias \"[Nombre 069]\", [Nombre 070] alias \"[Nombre 071]\", [Nombre 072] alias \"[Nombre 073]\", [Nombre 074] alias \"[Nombre 075]\", [Nombre 076] and [Nombre 077] and a subject identified only by the alias \"[Nombre 078]\", using cellphone number [Valor 061] with the IMEI 359792057305160 device, called the intercepted number [Valor 062], used by the investigated party [Nombre 066] \"alias [Nombre 067]\". During the communication, he asked for \"[Nombre 079]\" and subsequently left the ambient audio open, in which the head of the Limón Drug Control Police delegation could be heard discussing aspects of the raid (allanamiento) to be executed, an action contrary to the duties entrusted to him as a public official […] 9. As a consequence of the action carried out by the defendant [Nombre 057], the raid (allanamiento) in case 16-000902-0472-PE was not executed, because due to the leak of information, one of the investigated parties who was staying at the property to be raided in Dondonia, Limón, learned that said raid (allanamiento) was going to be carried out, which caused the drugs stored there to be moved to another location by the criminal group\" [sic] (cf. fs. 22 to 25 of the file identified as Legajo principal part 6). Several circumstances must be highlighted. Summary proceedings 16-000045-1219PE, in which [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] appeared as investigated parties, was not instructed by the then prosecutor Leonardo Brenes Gómez, but by prosecutor José Arturo Dinarte Gutiérrez. This is detailed in the evidence offering of the accusation in the aforementioned cause, testimonial evidence section, point 8 (cf. f.\n\n4 of the file named Legajo principal parte 7), so it is not possible to assert that Judge Brenes Gómez acted as the accuser of those subjects in the past. The references made regarding the membership of [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] in a criminal organization were made in the context of the accusation drafted against the Drug Control Police investigator [Nombre 057] and in order to illustrate what the offense attributed to the latter consisted of. That is, they were not personal considerations of the official Leonardo Brenes Gómez — as the appellants claimed — but a statement made in the functions proper to the position he held as a prosecutor of the Public Ministry. Now, to reproach Judge Leonardo Brenes Gómez for not having recused himself from hearing this disciplinary case, based on his prior participation in drafting the aforementioned accusatory request, it would be necessary to assume that, at the time of the trial — six years later — he remembered in detail the content of said document. However, it is reiterated, the trial in this case was held six years after the preparation of the accusation, so it is entirely logical that he did not remember, with the precision required by the defense, the content of the request. The foregoing makes even more sense considering that, as already noted, [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050] were not the persons being investigated, nor accused at that time by the official Brenes Gómez, but rather the mention of their names was solely in the context of a general description of the crime attributed to a third party.\n\nTo accept the defense's argument, it would be necessary to assume that Judge Brenes Gómez—or any other judge of the Republic who previously served as a prosecutor—was obligated to keep an exhaustive record of all persons mentioned in their requests as potential perpetrators of a crime. One cannot reasonably demand that a judge remember all the cases they have heard in the past, much less that they keep a systematic record of all persons prosecuted in the cases with which they have had contact. Furthermore, a record of such a nature could compromise the judge's objectivity in the future, in open violation of the right to be forgotten (derecho al olvido), in addition to representing an excessive burden for the system of administration of justice. Moreover, it must be taken into consideration that the Judicial Branch has a limited number of judges, which makes it possible for the same judge to face the trial of the same person in another proceeding. If one assumes that the mere intervention in a prior case against the same person is sufficient grounds to doubt a judge's impartiality, it would also imply that the judicial system must create and maintain detailed controls of the cases pursued against a person throughout their entire life, even if they were not charged and tried, as well as of all judicial officers who had any contact with the matter, which, beyond the material limitations it entails, would clearly violate the fundamental rights of persons who have served as defendants (imputadas) in criminal proceedings, due to the existence of an institutional memory parallel to the official records, which would not be subject to time limitations.\n\nIt is worth clarifying that the mere intervention of a judge in a prior proceeding pursued against a defendant (imputado) or even in prior phases of the same proceeding, for example, in the capacity of prosecutor (fiscal), as occurs in this case, does not automatically generate an impact on their impartiality; rather, a case-by-case analysis must be conducted to determine the content and scope of that participation. Those examples are brought up because, although none are equivalent to the situation presented in this case—because the truth is that there is no proof that official Brenes Gómez acted as accuser of [Name 001] and [Name 050] when he held the position of prosecutor—they are the ones that can be considered closest and most useful as they bear some resemblance to the present matter. Regarding the participation of the same judge in prior cases pursued against the same defendant (imputado), the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution no. 2022-1134, of 10:55 a.m. on November 4, 2022, stated: \"The first aspect to highlight is that, despite noting the intervention of Judge […] in a prior proceeding pursued against the petitioner for acts of the same nature, that circumstance, by itself, is not sufficient to cast doubt on his impartiality. Observe that, from the review conducted of international and constitutional regulations, it follows that the guarantee of impartiality implies that the same judge cannot preside in various instances for the same matter. None of the instruments alluded to indicate that the judge cannot hear various proceedings against the same defendant (imputado), since his investiture obligates him to be objective and to base his decisions on the existing legal framework (marco jurídico), as well as on the particularities of the matters presented to him. In case of doubt, the procedural code has provided a series of mechanisms for the judge, on his own initiative or at the request of a party, to withdraw from a specific proceeding. The foregoing through excusal (excusa) and recusal (recusación), which may be promoted based on one of the hypotheses established in numeral 55 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other that may generate a reasonable doubt about the purity of the judge's judgment. It is worth noting that none of these incidents were raised during the debate of criminal case 17-000141-0332-PE, pursued against the petitioner and which resulted in the issuance of the sentence now under review. Having said the above, it must be concluded that the simple participation of Judge [Name 001] in a prior proceeding pursued against the same defendant (imputado) does not imply, per se, a reason to doubt his impartiality, and consequently, his intervention in the proceeding from which the questioned sentence derived is not contrary to the legal system.\" In a similar vein, we observe judgment no. 2012-923, of 09:45 a.m. on June 15, 2012, also from the Third Chamber: \"[…] in the particular case and after weighing the complaint, this Chamber concludes that the alleged defect is non-existent. Although on the very day the debate began to hear the acts accused against [Name 080], said co-judge (cojueza) formed part of the Tribunal—with a different composition—that heard another factual framework (marco fáctico) against the same accused, the truth is that said situation does not constitute the procedural defect being claimed. The complainant does not manage to demonstrate that Ms. Chaves López was prejudiced against the defendant (justiciable) for having sentenced him for acts different from those now subjected to criticism at the cassation level. The foregoing, by itself, does not constitute a circumstance that affects or influences the impartiality or objectivity that was required of the judge.\"\n\nIn reality, the private defense attorney merely points out that she, a priori, had already formed a “criterion” (criterio) regarding the accused, based on the prior conviction (sentencia condenatoria anterior) in which she participated, but without conclusively demonstrating whether, throughout the trial or in the judgment (sentencia) rendered, her assessment had any effect or incidence in the terms he proposes, which, in any event, is not verified in the present matter. As can be confirmed from listening to the audiovisual files that record the delivery of the oral ruling against the accused, the sentencing decision and the penalty imposed were based solely on the evidence presented at trial, without any mention of the outcome of the other case cited by the complainant. Even, as will be analyzed in Considering III regarding the reasoning for the penalty, the judges weighed the defendant’s status as a first-time offender.\n\nLikewise, even taking into account the resolution of this Chamber, number 1034-2005, cited by the appellant in his writ of appeal, there is no evidence of any reasonable suspicion that Licenciada Chaves López was not free from contamination by having recently tried [Name 080], which would have affected her purity of criterion when facing the new case against the accused. In light of the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that, in this case, the circumstance that one of the members of the Penal Tribunal of the First Judicial Circuit of Guanacaste, Liberia, had participated in a previous trial with a different accusation against the same defendant does not constitute a violation of the principles of impartiality and objectivity of the Judge, which is why the objection is rejected» (Emphasis added). In the previous precedent, the case of a judge who issued a conviction against a defendant for the crime of aggravated robbery and who, after concluding that trial, enters another with the same defendant for different acts, but with the same legal classification, was analyzed, and it is concluded that the mere intervention in another matter against the same accused person does not constitute, automatically, a compromise of impartiality, but rather there must be an element that, objectively, casts doubt on the neutrality of the judge when facing the new matter, a criterion this Chamber shares. With this same logic, at the international level, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, in the case Alexandru Marian Iancu vs Romania, of February 4, 2020, where the impartiality was questioned due to the intervention of the same judge in two different cases against the same defendant, for similar acts and even with common evidence (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-200729%22]}). On that occasion, the Court indicated that, in the absence of evidence showing personal partiality, the matter should be analyzed from the perspective of the objective impartiality test (cf. paragraph 66). It established that, beyond the similarity of the two proceedings, the judge's conduct did not justify the applicant's fears regarding his impartiality (cf. paragraph 72). This last precedent is relevant because it shows that, even in those cases where a judge has tried a person for similar acts, that circumstance, in itself, should not give rise to a questioning of the judge's impartiality, if it is not accompanied by evidence that allows establishing a true commitment of his criterion, which has not occurred in this case. On the other hand, it is important to point out that case 16-000045-1219-PE and the present preliminary proceedings (sumaria) are completely independent, even though there may be coincidence in some information. Note that in the present matter, no mention is made, nor is data from the previous case used as background, which finally concluded with a request for dismissal (solicitud de desestimación) managed by the instructing prosecutor Arturo Dinarte, (cf. pp. 579 to 584 of the file named Expediente-160000451219PECompleto). Furthermore, more than a year elapsed between both matters, since the request for dismissal of case 16-000045-1219-PE was dated April 4, 2017, which marked the closure of the investigation; whereas the present matter began at the police level in April 2018 and within the Public Ministry, as already noted, in September of that same year. The investigation was even under the charge of diverse specialized police forces, since the preliminary proceedings (sumaria) 16-0000451219-PE was processed by the Drug Control Police, while the present one was handled by the Narcotics Section of the Judicial Investigation Organization. Furthermore, with the exception of the mention of [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 050], the groups of persons investigated were not the same. By virtue of the foregoing, it is not possible to affirm that the same acts were investigated in the two proceedings. Based on the considerations set forth, this Chamber concludes that it is not possible to objectively derive a founded doubt about the impartiality of Judge Brenes Gómez at the time he conducted the trial of the present preliminary proceedings, insofar as it is not possible to infer the existence of a prejudice on his part regarding the criminal liability of the accused persons. As a result of the foregoing, the fifth ground of the appeal brief (recurso de apelación) filed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales and the fourth ground of the challenge (impugnación) filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar are hereby declared without merit (sin lugar).\n\nFirst ground of the appeal of the judgment filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030]. He alleges \"Improper application of the rules contained in Articles 1, 2, 4, 6, 82, and 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), by having set aside the bifurcation (cesura) by decision of a defense attorney and the court.\" The defense counsel argues that, pursuant to the provisions of numbers 323, 324, 357, and 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the holding of the trial in two phases was authorized in this matter: one aimed at analyzing the existence of guilt and another dedicated to the individualization of the sentence. He contends that although the bifurcation (cesura) of the trial is optional and in this matter was requested by the defense counsel for co-defendant [Name 001], when its concession was authorized, it had extensive effect for all the accused, such that the agreement benefited everyone equally, insofar as said institution allows for a more detailed analysis of the penalty to be imposed and even permits the accused and their defense counsel to offer evidence for the purposes of the provisions of number 71 of the Penal Code (Código Penal). Despite this, he maintains that the trial court facilitated an approach with the defense counsel for the accused [Name 001], to negotiate the waiver of the bifurcation (cesura), to which the privately retained defense attorney for said defendant agreed, but without seeking the opinion of the other accused and their defense attorneys. The appellant considers that, contrary to what the lower court (a quo) argued, the agreement with the requesting party was not sufficient to continue with the trial in an ordinary manner, because once the bifurcation (cesura) was authorized, it constituted a procedural guarantee in favor of all the accused and not only the one who filed the request. He argues that the exercise of the material defense was affected and, furthermore, points out that procedural rules are a matter of public order, and therefore are not subject to waiver. In light of the provisions of number 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he maintains that there is no legal provision that allows the court to suppress a procedural phase, as occurred in this matter with the elimination of the bifurcation (cesura) once said phase had already been authorized. He indicates that Articles 169 and 177 of the same normative body regulate the possibility of waiving time limits or the claim of relative procedural defects, but outside these specific cases, there is no regulation whatsoever that allows a procedural phase to be waived. The challenger records various doctrinal citations and cites in his favor rulings No. 5507-2000 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and No. 32-A-97 of the former Court of Criminal Cassation (Tribunal de Casación Penal). He concludes that \"having decreed the holding of the trial in two phases, the court lacked the normative power to eliminate this condition upon the mere action of one defendant and his defense, beyond the collective agreement of all the recipients of the process\" (cf. f. 7225). He posits, as a grievance, that the suppressed phase would have allowed his client to argue the imposed penalty in a more profuse and scientific manner and thereby achieve a better justification for the sanction, thus eliminating the possibility of achieving a penalty appropriate to his endogenous and exogenous personal conditions. He requests the annulment of the judgment and a remand for new proceedings (cf. fs. 7219 to 7226).\n\nThird ground of the challenge formulated by [Name 030]. He alleges \"Violation of the right of defense by rendering nugatory the right to discuss the amount of the penalty, through bifurcation (cesura), despite the fact that this right had been granted since the preliminary hearing\" (cf. f. 7393). The appellant argues that he was sentenced to 30 years in prison through a process that disregarded the bifurcation (cesura), despite the fact that it had been authorized during the preliminary hearing by Judge Marjorie Valenciano, in response to the request made by the then privately retained defense attorney for [Name 001]: José Pablo Badilla. He explains that such a decision is contrary to due process and the right of defense, besides modifying the manner of conducting the trial, established since the order to open trial (auto de apertura a juicio) and that the latter is a resolution that lacks recourse. He notes that, while the bifurcation (cesura) was authorized at the instance of the defense of one of the accused, upon approving its implementation, it became a guarantee that benefited all the accused equally, which is why it was not possible to seek only the opinion of the defense counsel of one of the affected parties to decide its elimination, as was done in this matter. He requests, to this effect, that the recording of the first hearing of the adversarial proceeding be verified. [Name 334] alleges that, as an accused, he did not understand the scope of the waiver of the bifurcation (cesura) that his defense attorney had authorized, until the closing arguments stage. He states that this prevented, in a hearing separate from the decision on guilt, \"a series of important arguments in my favor from being presented, which in turn could be taken into account by the Trial Court when imposing a possible prison sentence against me\" (cf. f. 7395). He indicates that the conduct of the lower court (a quo) materialized in the imposition of 30 years in prison, without being able to take into account many of the aspects he intended to present, together with his defense attorney, in the bifurcation (cesura) phase that had been authorized. As a grievance, he refers to the fact that, had those aspects been assessed, much lesser penalties would have been set than those imposed against him (cf. f. 7396).\n\nThe grounds of appeal are dismissed. The procedural institute of bifurcation (cesura) is provided for in ordinal 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states: \"Request for trial to be held in two phases. Within the period provided for in the preceding article, the accused may request that the trial be held in two phases, with the purpose that the first discusses matters concerning the existence of guilt and the second, if it exists, matters relating to the individualization of the penalty and civil consequences. Within that same period, the civil parties may make the same request, but regarding the civil consequences. Before referring the proceedings, the court shall rule on the request. Once the foregoing matters are resolved, the proceedings, the documents, and the seized objects shall be referred to the trial court and the detainees shall be placed at its disposal\" (Emphasis supplied). As is clear from the foregoing provision, it is a procedural mechanism that allows the division of the trial into two phases: in the first, known in the doctrine as the interlocutory on guilt, the existence of the punishable act and the criminal liability of the accused person are debated; while the second corresponds to the punishment stage, in which the penalty to be imposed is discussed and the evidence on the matter is presented, should it have been offered and admitted. This second stage is called the interlocutory on fixing the penalty. In the Costa Rican legal system, the splitting of the trial does not correspond to the natural course of the process, but must be preceded by the request of the accused person before the judge of the intermediate stage, who must rule on the petition prior to referring the case to trial. In this case, it is verified that the defense counsel for accused [Name 001], in the preliminary hearing held on February 27 to 28, 2023, requested that the bifurcation (cesura) be ordered (cf. f. 4110 vto of the main file). Regarding that action, the Criminal Court (Juzgado Penal) of the Second Judicial Circuit, in a resolution at 10:00 a.m. on March 6, 2023, ordered the following: \"VII. CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR BIFURCATION (CESURA). Procedure provided for in number 323 of the C.P.P. In the hearing, Defense Attorney Badilla Villanueva, on behalf of his client [Name 001], requested that the trial be held in two phases and offered evidence. Given that the requirements are met: It was requested by a party legitimately entitled to do so and that party intends to discuss a possible penalty to be imposed; this Court of the Intermediate Phase accepts said petition and orders the trial that has been ordered to be held in two phases.\n\nThe offered testimonial evidence is admitted: -[Name 003] -[Name 081]» [sic] (Highlighting supplied. Cf. f. 4138 front and back of the main file). Subsequently, during the oral and public trial, there were several interventions by the court related to this issue, which must be outlined for the correct resolution of the claim, namely: (i) During the opening of the trial on May 16, 2024, in the first hearing, as recorded in the audio and video file 180001041219PE16052024102400-2_Multi—0, starting at counter 4:50, the presiding judge mentioned the decree of the bifurcation (cesura) in the following terms: «This trial is decreed with bifurcation (cesura), that means for those who are not lawyers and who are the accused persons, right, that means that first, in a first part of the trial process, the issue related to guilt will be resolved and subsequently the issue related to the penalty will have to be analyzed. So, of course, the trial will be separated into two parts, because that is what the procedural rule establishes, so that you take that into account and also have that dynamic with your defense attorneys, of course the Public Prosecutor's Office as well. So in that first part you should be aware of that […] it is clarified, of course, that the bifurcation (cesura) part is uniquely and exclusively with one of the defendants and the second part, if necessary, it is not an exact determination, that is, only if it were necessary». (ii) As can be inferred from the audio and video file identified as 180001041219PE02072024015040-2_Multi—0, in the second hearing on July 2, 2024, upon concluding the testimony of witness [Name 133], the court reviewed the remaining testimonial evidence to be presented and, starting at counter 19:17, stated: «We have two more witnesses offered, but these are for the second stage of the bifurcation (cesura), if that stage were to exist, according to what it says here, Ms. [Name 003] and [Name 081], that is what the minute says. Is that correct, counselor?» Immediately following, the private defense attorney Mena Ayales stated: «That is correct. In the preliminary hearing, those two witnesses were offered by the former defense of my client, but at this time we are going to dispense with them, so the floor should be given to the colleagues and the Public Prosecutor's Office». As can be deduced from the preceding passages, although the court did not issue a warning at that time about the appearance of those deponents, the defense of the defendant [Name 001] requested that they be dispensed with. This petition was heard by the remaining legal representatives, as well as by the Public Prosecutor's Office, without any of them showing opposition; consequently, the witnesses were dispensed with. (iii) In the first hearing on October 14, 2024, and as recorded in the audio and video file 180001041219PE-141020240931462_Multi—1, before beginning the closing arguments stage, the court stated the following: «Just as it had been ordered, the court has indeed corroborated the following, in the case of one of the parties, at least from what we had heard, even I believe it was Mr. Francisco Mena Ayales, in previous circumstances of the proceeding, who had indicated the possibility of a bifurcation (cesura), however, in that trial there was a dispensing of the evidence that was for that possible second part, which was the bifurcation (cesura), so the trial continues in the manner it has been developing and that situation leads us directly to the fact that we are going to begin the conclusive phase, meaning in this case the closing arguments of the Public Prosecutor's Office and subsequently those of the female and male defense attorneys, meaning the defense, for that reason we are going to give the floor to the representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office». From the summary provided, it is possible to conclude that, regarding the institution of the bifurcation (cesura), the lower court (a quo) follows the thesis expressed by the Third Chamber in Resolution No. 2000-00376, of 09:55 hours on April 7, 2000, according to which, in those cases where evidence related to the penalty or civil claims does not need to be presented, it is not necessary to carry out the second part of the trial, namely: «It should be added that in order to decide whether the trial is held in two stages or not, the Court must contemplate the reason for being of the bifurcation (cesura), which is found in Article 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This last provision states that the second stage of the trial is especially provided for the individualization of the criminal and civil effects of the punishable act and, what is more important, the second paragraph of the last cited legal provision requires having offered evidence in order to be able to individualize the consequences of the crime. The preceding indicates for what purpose the possibility of dividing the trial into two phases is contemplated. If evidentiary elements especially relevant for the determination of the criminal and civil effects of a crime are not offered, then the application of the bifurcation (cesura) is meaningless» (Highlighting supplied). This Chamber, after a careful assessment of the institution, takes the liberty of disagreeing with the previously stated position, because it considers that, when the bifurcation (cesura) has been ordered, the holding of the interlocutory judgment setting the penalty is not contingent upon the presentation of evidence, not only because Article 323 of the procedural code does not provide for it, but because its reason for being is the broader and more detailed approach to the circumstances that have an impact on the individualization of the sanction to be applied—or the civil consequences, as the case may be—such as the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, application of alternative or accessory penalties, recidivism, unification of penalties, among others. That is, once the bifurcation (cesura) has been agreed upon by judicial resolution, the execution of the second stage depends only on the declaration of guilt. Adding other requirements entails an extensive interpretation of the norm, in contradiction to the provisions of Article 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows this type of interpretation only when it benefits the participants in the proceeding. On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that, after the judge in the intermediate stage issues a judicial resolution ordering the bifurcation (cesura), the procedure transforms from an ordinary one into a biphasic one, with preclusive effects. The decision is not susceptible to being revoked by the trial court, nor withdrawn by the parties, except for reasons that justify it and due motivation is stated. Furthermore, precisely because a transformation of the proceeding exists, it affects all persons judged jointly, not only those who requested it. The court could not divide the trial only for one or several accused and conduct it in a continuous manner for the remaining accused, for reasons of unity and coherence of the proceeding. The trial is a logical unit in which the facts, the evidence, and the parties are closely linked, in such a way that it would not be possible to fraction it solely as a function of some participants. Bear in mind that when the trial is conducted with bifurcation (cesura), the dynamic changes even from the very summons, because the parties must be cited only to carry out the first part. Thus, Article 324 of the procedural code, in what is relevant, states: «When the holding of the trial in two phases has been ordered, the court shall set the date for the first one. Upon ruling on the guilt, it must set, if necessary, the date for the second hearing, which must take place within the following five days». The execution of the trial is also modified, because requests related to the penalty and civil claims must be reserved for the second part, if it is possible to advance to that stage, just as Article 357 of the same normative body indicates: «Request for penalty and civil damages. If the division of the trial into two phases has not been ordered, the prosecutor and the complainant must request the penalty they deem appropriate, when they request a conviction. The civil plaintiff must specify the amount of damages and losses they estimate to have suffered after the determination made in the preparatory proceeding. When the division has been ordered, those requests must be formulated in the second hearing» (Highlighting supplied). Even the judgment itself is fractionated, because the ruling on guilt must be recorded before the second part of the trial is held. In that sense, Article 359 of the procedural code states: «Trial on the criminal and civil consequences. The trial on the penalty or civil consequences shall begin with the reading of the first part of the judgment. Then the court shall seek conciliation regarding civil claims. Next, the evidence that has been offered to individualize the penalty or the civil consequences shall be received, and it shall proceed, from that point forward, according to the common rules. Upon concluding the trial, the court shall issue the resolution on the penalty and civil liability and shall form the complete judgment, according to the rules provided for that resolution. The period to appeal the judgment shall begin from the integral notification. If a retrial has been ordered only to determine the penalty or the civil consequences, the same rules shall apply» (Highlighting supplied). Given this procedural bifurcation (bifurcación), it is not possible to carry out the bifurcation (cesura) only for some of the accused while maintaining the unity of the trial for others. The foregoing, because in a trial held continuously only for some of the accused, what the judge states regarding them somehow binds and compromises their criterion for the remaining accused, since the individualization of the sanction does not only attend to personal aspects of the person subject to justice—such as, for example, their criminal record or socioeconomic condition—but also includes objective elements potentially common to all the accused—for instance, the circumstances of time, place, and manner of the act, as well as the importance of the harm or danger caused—. It is thus that the decision to conduct a bifurcation (cesura) or to maintain the resolution of all issues in a single phase cannot be partial; rather, it must encompass all of the incriminated persons. Bear in mind, in this regard, that the criterion adopted when setting the penalty for a part of the defendants could affect the person or persons who promoted the trial by bifurcation (cesura), seeking a deeper or more paused discussion of any circumstance that is determinant in the establishment of the sanction. Consequently, in order to avoid advancement of criteria and to ensure the judge's impartiality also in this second stage, it must necessarily be held with all the accused persons, even if only one of them promoted it. Based on the foregoing, this Chamber observes that the errors pointed out by the technical and material defense do indeed concur, properly because the court conducted the trial continuously, despite the decree of the bifurcation (cesura) in the intermediate stage, without giving a hearing to all parties—who were only asked for their opinion regarding the petition raised by the technical defense of the person subject to justice [Name 001] to dispense with the testimonial evidence—and without the due reasoning being stated. However, it is verified that the alleged procedural defect is of a relative nature and was validated (convalidó) by the inaction of the participants in the trial. Note that the decision was not challenged by any of the parties, as they remained silent, which demonstrates tacit conformity with the court's decision. At this point, it is important to emphasize that the purpose of guaranteeing the accused person a technical defense is not merely formal; rather, it seeks to ensure that the designated or chosen defense attorney plays an active role during the proceeding, in protection of their client's interests. In this sense, it is not admissible that, with available procedural mechanisms to challenge a decision, inaction is chosen, and subsequently one seeks to obtain a benefit derived from that passivity. And the fact is that, according to Articles 442 and 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the court's decision to dispense with holding the second phase of the trial, the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) was procedurally appropriate; however, none of the parties, including the technical defense of [Name 030]—who now challenges—, filed it. Regarding the validation of procedural defects, Article 177, subsection b) provides: «Except in cases of absolute defects, defects shall be validated in the following cases: […] b) When those entitled to challenge it have accepted, expressly or tacitly, the effects of the act». That tacit acceptance was also evidenced during the closing arguments stage, when the Public Prosecutor's Office presented its claims, not only regarding the determination of the criminal liability of the accused persons, but also in relation to the imposition of the penalty. None of the defense attorneys formulated any objection in this regard, and all presented their final arguments without referencing a possible second phase of the trial. This Chamber does not share, in any way, the defense's argument, which—although it does not express it directly—appears to assert the existence of an absolute defect that would vitiate the entirety of the trial. The procedural guarantee that assists the accused person consists of having their criminal liability decided through a trial held in accordance with the principles of orality, immediacy, concentration, continuity (the last two will be discussed in depth in a separate consideration), contradiction, and publicity, all of which were observed in the present case.\n\nIn this framework, holding a bifurcated trial (juicio con cesura) constitutes an exception and not the rule, and therefore it cannot be considered an unavoidable procedural form, but rather applicable only when the party expresses its interest. To argue the contrary would imply assuming that trials conducted continuously violate the fundamental rights and procedural guarantees of the accused person, a conclusion that is legally untenable. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that procedural forms are not an end in themselves, but are directed at protecting the fundamental rights of the parties; hence the need to clearly identify the harm caused by their non-compliance. As Alberto Binder has pointed out, «The form and even the process itself are nothing more than instruments for the validity of rights and principles of defense of the human being that are guaranteed by the forms.» (El incumplimiento de las formas procesales: Elementos para una crítica a la teoría unitaria de las nulidades en el proceso penal, Buenos Aires: AD-HOC, 2000, p. 85). The defense did not identify a concrete and verifiable grievance derived from the court's decision to hold the trial continuously; instead, it merely argued, generically, that a second phase of the trial would have allowed a more extensive discussion on aspects linked to the imposition of the penalty. However, it did not specify what the effective limitations it faced as a consequence of the continuous development of the trial were, nor did it indicate what arguments or relevant elements were excluded from its presentation. It is clear then that the appealing party seeks the declaration of nullity for nullity's sake alone, regarding both the trial and the resulting judgment. In this regard, Binder adds that: «the declaration of nullity must be the final ratio in the defense of due process. As long as it is fulfilled, the forms remain subordinated to the principles because they are only guarantees of compliance with those principles […] the declaration of nullity always responds to a concrete interest and is nothing other than a response to a particular state of defenselessness or a vitiated act whose repair is impossible» (Ibid., p. 92. Underlining added). In this case, as indicated, we are facing a relative defect that was validated (se convalidó) by the lack of a timely claim by the parties to the process. Finally, and for greater abundance, it should be noted that, even in the event that some harm to the accused person had been verified —which did not occur in this matter—, a possible declaration of nullity would only have affected the determination of the penalty —whose discussion corresponded to the omitted second part of the trial—, and not the declaration of criminal liability typical of the first phase, which was carried out in an ordinary manner and in accordance with the provisions of the current criminal procedure. That is to say, under no circumstances was it appropriate to grant what was requested by the appealing party. As a corollary, although the concurrence of a defect in the procedure of the lower court (a quo) is verified, for having nullified the bifurcation unilaterally and without substantiating the decision, the defect was validated by the tacit consent of the parties. Furthermore, no grievance derived from that decision is verified, and therefore no declaration of nullity is appropriate. Based on the foregoing, the first grounds of the appeal filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva and the third ground of the defendant [Name 030] are declared without merit.\n\n**VII. Fourth ground of appeal managed by the private defender Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Name 001].** He alleges a violation of the principles of continuity and concentration. He transcribes the call for attention made by the court to the prosecutor in charge of the debate, where it warns him to indicate which communications were of interest to the case, as they did not intend to turn the trial into a wiretap hearing (audiencia de escuchas). He questions that, after the debate resumed, the prosecutor requested the reproduction of all 4030 communications, which turned the trial into a wiretap hearing, even when his client had expressly requested it during the investigation phase. He indicates that as technical defense counsel he opposed listening to all the communications, because he knew some were not of interest, but the court reproduced all of them. He details that, from the first day of the listening sessions, which occurred on July 23, 2024, to the last, which was October 8, 2024, 76 days elapsed and the testimonial evidence had concluded on July 8, 2024. He estimates that there was a violation of the principles of orality, immediacy, concentration, continuity, adversarial principle, and material truth, because from the time the reception of testimonial evidence concluded until the issuance of the judgment, almost four months elapsed, which he deems unreasonable and placed the defendants in a state of defenselessness, coupled with the fact that the principle of prompt and complete justice was violated. He asserts that what occurred could have affected the judges' ability to remember the witnesses' statements and determine the existence of contradictions, as well as circumstances necessary to establish their credibility. As a grievance, he states that the prolonged period invested in the listening sessions could have prejudicially influenced the issuance of a conviction against his client. He requests that the ground be upheld, the judgment be annulled, and a remand be ordered. Furthermore, he requests that the accused's release be ordered. **The ground is declared without merit.** The circumstance claimed is nothing more than a disagreement by the technical defense counsel with the direction of the debate by the trial court, but which in no way constitutes a defect susceptible to being declared in this instance. In matters processed within the Specialized Jurisdiction on Organized Crime, the maximum period of suspension of the debate is 20 days —which is deduced from articles 10 subsection d) of Law No. 9481 and 336 of the Criminal Procedure Code—. In the case before us, review of the records allows one to deduce that said period was not exceeded, as recorded by the trial court in the second operative part (resultando segundo) of the judgment, namely: «The debate was carried out as detailed: May 16, 2024 (both hearings were held), May 23, 2024 (first hearing was held), May 30, 2024 (both hearings were held), May 31, 2024 (second hearing was held), June 3, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 5, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 10, 2024 (first hearing was held), June 11, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 17, 2024 (second hearing was held), June 19, 2024 (second hearing was held), June 25, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 26, 2024 (first hearing was held), June 27, 2024 (both hearings were held), June 28, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 1, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 2, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 8, 2024 (first hearing was held), July 17, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 18, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 19, 2024 (first hearing was held), July 23, 2024 (second hearing was held), July 24, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 26, 2024 (first hearing was held), July 29, 2024 (both hearings were held), July 30, 2024 (first hearing was held), August 1, 2024 (first hearing was held), August 8, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 19, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 21, 2024 (first hearing was held), August 22, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 23, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 26, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 27, 2024 (first hearing was held), August 29, 2024 (both hearings were held), August 30, 2024 (first hearing was held), September 2, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 3, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 9, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 10, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 12, 2024 (first hearing was held), September 23, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 27, 2024 (both hearings were held), September 30, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 1, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 2, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 3, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 4, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 7, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 8, 2024 (second hearing was held), October 9, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 11, 2024 (first hearing was held), October 14, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 15, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 16, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 17, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 21, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 23, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 28, 2024 (both hearings were held), October 29, 2024 (both hearings were held), November 1, 2024 (both hearings were held), November 4, 2024 (both hearings were held), November 5, 2024 (both hearings were held), November 6, 2024 (both hearings were held) and November 7, 2024 (first hearing was held)» (cf. pp. 44 to 45 of the judgment). Now, specifically, the defense's disagreement focuses on the fact that, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público), during the debate all telephone communications intercepted by order of the judge of the preparatory stage were reproduced, which caused 76 days to elapse from the time the reception of testimonial evidence concluded until other acts of the debate were carried out. In this regard, it must be pointed out that criminal proceedings are structured to advance in stages. Thus, the judge of the intermediate stage is responsible for, as one of the tasks assigned by law, the examination of the accusation (article 319 of the procedural code), which includes evaluating the relevance, necessity, and suitability of the evidence that supports it. The same analysis applies to the evidence offered by the other parties to the process. In that sense, article 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: «The court of the intermediate procedure shall admit the evidence relevant to the correct resolution of the case, and shall order ex officio that which proves essential. It shall reject that which it considers clearly abundant or unnecessary. It may ex officio order that evidence be received in the debate only when the negligence of any of the parties is manifest and its source resides in the actions already carried out. Against the decision rendered, only a motion for reconsideration is applicable, without prejudice to reiterating the request for receipt of inadmissible evidence, as evidence for better judgment (prueba para mejor resolver), before the trial court.» Consequently, it is at that stage that objections to the evidence offered by the other parties to the process should be formulated.\n\nOnce the judge of the intermediate stage admits the evidence to be presented at trial, the discussion on that point is precluded, and the trial court must act accordingly, by receiving the admitted evidence—which, it is worth noting, becomes common to all parties—as stated in Article 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code: \"Documents shall be read and displayed at the hearing, indicating their origin. Seized objects and other elements of conviction shall be exhibited for recognition by witnesses, experts, or the accused. Recordings and audiovisual evidence shall be reproduced [...]\". In the case at hand, the Public Prosecutor’s Office offered the entirety of the telephone interceptions captured in the investigation phase, together with their transcriptions, which were stored on a USB device, brand Kingston, Data Traveler 100, black, with a capacity of 128 GB, identified as 11-USB-CJIC-2021, and on a hard drive, brand SP, Armor A60, black with yellow, with a capacity of 2 TB, identified by Judicial Branch asset number 745179, as detailed in points 1 and 2 of the material evidence offer in the accusatory document (cf. reverse of page 4015 of the main file). For its part, the intermediate stage judge admitted the evidence in those same terms, stating: \"Material evidence. The accusation offers, and the following content is admitted: -A USB Device, brand Kingston, Data Traveler 100, black, with a capacity of 128 GB, identified as 11-USB-CJIC-2021 (To be provided to the Criminal Court). -A Hard Drive type Device, brand SP, Armor A60, black with yellow, with a capacity of 2 TB, identified by Judicial Branch asset number 745179. (To be provided to the Criminal Court)\" [sic] (cf. page 4138 of the main file). By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber finds no irregularity in the trial court’s action of reproducing the entirety of the content of the telephone interceptions, as it involved evidence admitted for that stage and there existed an interest by the party that offered it to proceed in that manner. The trial court had the possibility of consulting the parties as to whether they were interested in having the entirety of that evidence reproduced or only part of it, but it could in no way curtail the parties’ right to request its complete presentation, if they deemed it appropriate. What would have potentially constituted a defect was the court’s unjustified decision to omit the recordings requested by the prosecution. Now, the defense considers that the passage of 76 days between the conclusion of the testimonial evidence presentation and the conclusion of the playback of the telephone interceptions constitutes a violation of the principle of continuity. That position is by no means acceptable. Communications captured as a product of a telephone interception form part of the body of evidence with the same rank as testimonial, documentary, and expert evidence; consequently, the time invested in their reproduction during the trial cannot be understood as a suspension of the trial, but rather as what it truly is: a continuation of the evidence presentation phase. The defense seems to understand that testimonial evidence has preeminence over the remaining evidence, which is erroneous. Our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of proof, which does not establish per se a specific value to evidence based on its nature. The examination of evidence, governed by the rules of sound criticism, is what allows value to be assigned to each piece of evidence presented at trial, such that it is evidently an exercise carried out a posteriori, during deliberation. In this case, moreover, it has been possible to confirm that the content of the telephone interceptions was one of the determining elements for proving the prosecution's theory, and it is therefore not possible to consider it secondary or marginal compared to the testimonial evidence. Furthermore, the judicial investigators alluded in their testimonies to the content of the telephone interceptions, such that this is evidence that complements each other. By virtue of the above, having dismissed the defects alleged by the defense, the fourth ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales is declared without merit.\n\nVIII. Claims related to the first order for interception of telephone communications. First ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Name 001]. He claims \"Lack of intellectual reasoning. Erroneous assessment of the evidence in rejecting the first defective procedural act presented. The court omitted assessing what was challenged by the objection\". He recounts that, at trial, during closing arguments, he raised an objection for a defective procedural act against \"the act that occurred at the Judicial Branch interception center, when telephone numbers [Value 063] and [Value 064] of two individuals named [Name 161] and [Name 029] were connected to be intercepted\". He states that he objected to the act of intercepting said telephone rights, on the basis that it relied on a resolution that did not comply with a clear requirement, namely, that there be sufficient indicators that the person to be intercepted is carrying out an unlawful activity. He details that the first interception order was based solely on Judicial Investigation Agency Report IP-297-EN-18 of October 19, 2018, from which—in his view—it cannot be inferred that the persons to be intercepted were engaged in any criminal activity. He asserts that the interception of communications was ordered \"without any sufficient element of probability to believe that the two individuals were dedicated to any criminal activity\". He argues that the trial court did not analyze whether there were sufficient elements of conviction to order the telephone interception, but rather relied on the fact that the resolution contained the necessary reasoning. He points out that his arguments were not taken into account, and that the correct course was to determine whether there existed a sufficient probability of the commission of an unlawful act. He affirms that the preparatory stage judge did not verify the evidence on which the Public Prosecutor’s Office based its request, which consisted of a police report. He alleges that, according to the interception order, based on the report and two diagrams, it was concluded that his client led a criminal organization, but it was not assessed that the information dated from 2013. He argues that the diagrams contain simple associations, with assignments of functions, without reference to a particular activity and with dates far from the investigation. He argues that this information does not detail anything regarding [Name 161] and [Name 029], because they are not mentioned as collaborators of his client. He asserts that the judge who ordered the interception lied, because she did not analyze the evidence and simply accepted the information provided by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the application. He points out that, regarding ([Name 004]), the judge simply accepted that he was the person who paid two vehicle circulation fees for two vehicles and also handled their technical inspection. He states that these vehicles were not intercepted or stopped to determine if they carried any illicit object, nor was ([Name 004]) observed transporting drugs in them; instead, he was only seen transporting the children and other family members of his client. With regard to [Name 161], it was indicated that he paid the road tax for two vehicles that were believed to belong to the criminal organization, despite the fact that no illicit activity was observed involving them. Furthermore, it was mentioned that [Name 161] had been linked to a drug transport in 2011, but the outcome of that preliminary investigation is unknown. He adds that it was also considered relevant that the individual constantly visited the monitored residence, which is not indicative of an unlawful act, besides being false, because there is only evidence of a single visit, from which no police intervention resulted to verify if he was carrying anything illicit. He accuses that the judge relied on police conjectures and presumptions, not on evidence. He emphasizes that the majority of the data contained in the police report referred to [Name 001], not to the intercepted individuals. He summarizes the content of the police report, then criticizes the investigative work carried out by the judicial police, as well as the penal judge’s oversight, because in his opinion, \"one should not intercept to investigate\". He considers that an adequate analysis of the police report would have allowed verification that the intercepted individuals were not observed carrying out any activity related to drug trafficking or of any other type that would permit the interception of their communications. He argues that the prosecutorial application contains false information, because the alleged connections of the individuals to be intercepted with his client date back to the year 2013. He explains that the report contains false information about [Name 010], because it states that he did not have a permit to carry a weapon that was seized from him, despite the fact that the existence of said permit is detailed in the same report. He describes that, in the resolution, the judge affirmed that the individual did not have a carry permit, which demonstrates that she did not assess the evidence, because she asserted falsehoods. He warns that the material action carried out by the Judicial Center for the Interception of Communications is illegal, because an interception was ordered without probability of the commission of a criminal act and the constitutional right of [Name 029] and [Name 161] was arbitrarily violated. He considers that, due to the manner in which the judicial resolution was issued, it must be declared illegal. Based on a citation from jurist Gilbert Armijo, he emphasizes that a judicial resolution can be challenged via an objection for defective procedural act. He requests that the resolution of 07:50 hours on November 1, 2018, issued by the Penal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José in the present preliminary investigation, be declared ineffective, for lack of intellectual reasoning and for being ordered without meeting the requirements demanded by law, as regards the probability of participation in a criminal activity. Applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, he requests that the illegality of all the derived evidence be declared. He adds that in the order for lifting bank secrecy visible on page 3693, the judge did not carry out any type of reasoning regarding the probability of participation in a criminal act and limited herself to indicating that the examination of probability had been carried out in the telephone interception and search and seizure orders, and then, without more, detailed the communications on which she based her order. He states that on that judicial resolution the lower court also did not rule on what was requested of it. He analyzes that the access to information contained in the seized electronic devices is found within the same search and seizure order and is based on the results of the telephone interceptions. He argues that there is no alternative element of proof to support the original order for interception of communications. He stresses that the objection for defective procedural act was rejected by integrating a textual copy of the content of police report IP-297-EN-2018 into the judgment, without any assessment, merely paraphrasing its content. He points out that with the requested declaration of nullity, there is insufficient evidence remaining to support the criminal liability of his client, or of the other accused. Regarding the grievance, he details that his client was sentenced to 40 years in prison, without the defense's complaint being resolved. He requests that the first order for interception of communications, as well as the material act of capturing communications and all the derived evidence, be declared ineffective; furthermore, due to lack of resulting evidence, that his client be acquitted of all punishment and liability. In the alternative, he requests that the contested judgment be annulled and a new trial be ordered. First ground of the appeal filed by private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of [Name 029]. She claims \"Defect in reasoning and error in the assessment of the evidence\".\n\nHe alleges that the defective procedural activity (actividad procesal defectuosa) raised by the defense against the ruling of the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, which authorized the wiretapping (intervención telefónica) of [Nombre 161] and [Nombre 029], was rejected, despite the fact that the existence of sufficient indicia suggesting that those persons were involved in the commission of crimes was not proven, as required by Article 9 of Law No. 7425 of August 9, 1994. He indicates, in this regard, that the police report used as the basis for ordering the interception of communications did not meet the essential requirement of proving sufficient indicium. He argues that, by rejecting the objection for defective procedural activity, the trial court breached the provisions of Article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by not adequately addressing the allegation that the authorization for wiretapping was not properly grounded in the existence of criminal conduct. In relation to the same complaint, the appellant also pointed out that it was not demonstrated that the wiretaps were obtained in accordance with due process (cf. f. 7454 verso). She states that said omission, together with the erroneous assessment and weighing of the evidence, violates due process and led to her client's conviction of 24 years in prison. She adds that, had the defense's arguments been considered, the defective procedural activity would have been upheld, thereby acquitting her client. She requests that the manner in which the lower court weighed the evidence and substantiated the challenged point be assessed. As a consequence of the foregoing, she seeks a declaration of ineffectiveness of the ruling issued on November 1, 2018, by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, which first ordered the interception of communications. As a consequence of the above, she requests that the ineffectiveness and illegality of the ruling issued on November 1, 2018, by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, which first ordered the interception of communications, be declared. Upon declaring this first ruling ineffective and illegal, in application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, she believes the illegality of all the wiretaps must be decreed, given that the remaining wiretaps derive directly from the first wiretap. She believes that, upon the declaration of illegality of the wiretaps, the Public Prosecutor's Office would be left without evidentiary body, since only the initial anonymous complaint would remain, which pointed to [Nombre 001] and the subjects known by the alias “[Nombre 083]” as part of the criminal structure, as set forth in the judicial police report No. IP-297-EN-2018, of October 18, 2018. The appellant claims that said report did not mention ([Nombre 004]) or [Nombre 161] as being involved in the alleged criminal activity. In the event the acquittal is not granted, the appellant requests a remand for a new trial and the lifting of the precautionary measure of pretrial detention, since it was imposed on the occasion of the conviction (cf. f. 7457 verso). For the reasons that will be stated, the complaints are dismissed (drafted by Judge Renauld Castro). In the first place, it should be noted that what is objectively appealable in this venue is the judgment issued by the Specialized Criminal Court on Organized Crime, not the actions executed by the Judicial Branch’s Wiretap Center (Centro de Intervenciones Telefónicas), in compliance with the communications interception order issued in this matter by the jurisdictional authority of the preliminary stage. Said office acts by delegation of the judge who issues the judicial order, so its work is one of material execution, as derived from Article 14 of Law No. 8754, namely: “This unit shall carry out the interception of communications ordered by criminal judges throughout the country, when it is possible to use the available technology for that purpose.” The role of the judges of said Center is to ensure the legality of the interception procedure and the safeguarding of the fundamental rights of the investigated persons during that practice, so that, to legitimize their participation in the process, they verify that the request is preceded by the order issued by the competent authority that authorizes it. Under that premise, it is appropriate to resolve the claim regarding the validity of the limitation of the right to privacy of the co-accused ([Nombre 004]) and [Nombre 161], first ordered in the ruling issued by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at 7:50 a.m. on November 1, 2018 (cf. fs. 8 to 26 of volume I of the Interceptions File). By means of said ruling, the interception of the lines or services [Valor 077] and [Valor 063] was authorized, the use of which was associated with [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 161] respectively, for a time period of three months — from November 1, 2018 to February 1, 2019 —. This Chamber was able to verify that, contrary to what the appellant asserts, the debated issue was addressed by the Criminal Court between folios 51 and 68 of the appealed judgment — according to the judgment's own foliation —. It should be noted that during the oral hearing held in this venue on May 9, 2025, Attorney Mena Ayales stated that the sentencing court did not respond to the real challenge he raised as defective procedural activity, but rather limited itself to recounting the reasoning set out by the criminal judge to authorize the interception of communications. The defense attorney added that what was truly challenged before the trial judges was left unanswered, namely: that there were not sufficient indicia to make it probable that the defendants were carrying out criminal activity. After examining in detail the appealed ruling, this appellate court (tribunal de alzada) concludes that the specific point referred to by Attorneys Mena Ayales and Solórzano Hernández was indeed duly resolved. From a thorough examination of the judgment, it can be determined that beyond “transcribing” or summarizing the reasons for which the guarantees judge authorized the limitation of the right to privacy — which was necessary to provide content to the issue of proving indicia —, the trial court did justify why it considered that said jurisdictional decision was in accordance with the law. Among the elements considered by the court to establish the appropriateness of restricting the right to privacy for investigative purposes and specifically, the judgment of probability — not certainty — of participation in a criminal act by both defendants, which must be verified in the initial stages of the criminal process, are the following: 1) Confirmation of data provided through confidential reports: Given the fear and risk that normally arises in any person when appearing at a police station or a judicial office to file a complaint against possible participants in the crime of drug trafficking, it is common for the investigation of crimes of such nature to begin with the receipt of data, through the various anonymous reporting channels made available to citizens. It is clear that a confidential report does not constitute evidentiary material in itself, but rather a piece of news or a means of receiving data that can prompt the Public Prosecutor's Office or the police to conduct inquiries in order to corroborate or discard the information provided. The circumstantial elements – in this context – are those produced when the collected information can be linked to findings in reality, which are documented through photographs, videos, or police reports, among others.\n\nIn the case under review, anonymous information was received pointing to the existence of a criminal group dedicated to illegal drug trafficking, in which [Name 001], known as «[Name 084]», appeared as the alleged leader, along with [Name 029], alias «[Name 083]», and [Name 161], known as «[Name 083]», and which had as its main point of operations the sectors of León XIII, Calle Blancos, and Cinco Esquinas de Tibás (cf. pages 11 to 12 of volume I of the Interventions Docket and pages 55 to 56 of the contested judgment, according to its own pagination). The constant interaction among the three implicated individuals, as well as their movement in the geographic areas of interest to said investigated parties, especially [Name 004] and [Name 207], was corroborated through stationary surveillance, tailing (seguimientos), and vehicle registration verifications of the vehicles they drove, among other inquiries carried out between the months of April and October of 2018. As a result of the tailing (seguimientos), it was confirmed that both [Name 029] and [Name 161] performed different tasks indicative of their subordination to [Name 001]—driving him to places and waiting for him outside the site, watching over him during his movements, and even collaborating in procedures or payments corresponding to the vehicles used by said subject. Likewise, within the surveillance period, the constant movement of both between the residence of [Name 001] in Santo Domingo de Heredia and León XIII was evidenced, which was compatible with the *notitia criminis* received, in terms of the activity sites and the identity of the persons identified as involved in the illicit drug trade. **2) Tailing and surveillance:** In report IP-297EN-2018, the sectors of León XIII, Cinco Esquinas de Tibás, and [Name 056] were determined as the geographic points of greatest activity of the investigated parties. The first surveillance occurred on April 3, 2018, when [Name 001] was observed arriving at the Vilma Curling Institutional Care Center, aboard vehicle license plate [Value 065], which was driven by [Name 010] (cf. page 12 of volume I of the Interventions Docket and 57 of the judgment, according to its own pagination). On April 30, and May 2, 3, 4, and 17, 2018, the influx of different vehicles and persons mentioned in the information gathered by the judicial police was observed, including vehicles with license plates [Value 045], [Value 066], [Value 067], and [Value 068], at the points of interest in Santo Domingo de Heredia and León XIII (cf. page 13 of volume I of the Interventions Docket, police report visible on pages 33 to 42 of volume I principal, and the appealed judgment, specifically between pages 62-65 according to its own pagination). The interaction routes and the vehicles involved in said movements through various sectors of León XIII were also documented with the help of the incident logs of the police officers of the Ministry of Public Security, Tibás Delegation, specifically in official letter No. MSP-DM-DVURFP-DGFPSGFP-DRPSJ-SN-0736-2018 (cf. pages 14 and 45 of volume I of the Interventions Docket, pages 46 to 47 of volume I principal, and page 64 of the appealed judgment, according to its own numbering). The police information was validated by the judicial police officers who entered the points of interest in León XIII on May 17, 2018, in the early morning hours (cf. page 64 of the judgment, according to its own numbering, and pages 51 to 53 of volume I principal), concluding that said zone probably corresponds to the drug storage site (cf. pages 64 to 65 of the appealed judgment, according to its own pagination). The transit of vehicles in the areas of interest was not limited to observation during a single day, as the appellant claims, but rather the surveillance dates include the following: April 3, 18, 20, and 30, 2018, continuing into the month of May 2018. On April 30 and May 2, 3, 4, and 17, several vehicles of interest were sighted traveling from the residence of [Name 001] in Santo Domingo de Heredia or in front of it, towards the surveillance sectors in León XIII and Tibás. Although the appealed judgment generically indicates that this verification through police surveillance and tailing (seguimientos) was carried out between April and May 2018 (cf. page 64 of the appealed judgment, according to its own numbering), the same ruling details some of the observations made on specific days and the police report IP-297-EN-18, which was assessed by the *a quo* for the determination regarding the existence of a probability judgment of participation by [Name 207] and [Name 004] in a criminal organization led by [Name 001]. Said document contains the complete count of interactions detected on each of those dates, indicating the time at which each movement of interest was made, and even includes surveillance carried out later, between June and October 2018, as will be detailed further below. In that regard, on April 20, 2018, it was possible to accredit that [Name 029] left the same residence in the [Name 056] residential complex, which [Name 001] was observed entering after a prison visit made on the previous April 3, to take a pet for veterinary care. That same day, April 20, vehicle license plate [Value 045], which was used by [Name 161], was seen arriving at the residence in Santo Domingo de Heredia. Subsequently, between April 30 and May 4, 2018, the arrival of [Name 029] aboard the Hyundai vehicle license plate [Value 067] at the residence of interest in Santo Domingo de Heredia was documented. Between those dates, it was possible to observe vehicle license plate [Value 056], a minibus style, entering the [Name 056] residence and later also seen parked outside one of the residences identified as storage, in the Ciudadela León XIII (cf. pages 62 to 63 of the appealed judgment, according to its own pagination). The trial judges also assessed that the officers in charge of the surveillance observed [Name 004] leaving, on different occasions, a residence located in Tibás, 100 meters north and 50 meters east of the Public Force Delegation, which had been identified as the place of residence of [Name 001] in drug trafficking case no. 14-000056-1219-PE, previously opened against the latter (cf. pages 63 to 64 of the judgment, according to its own pagination, and report IP-297-EN18, specifically on page 44 of volume I principal). With the help of the administrative police, it was also documented that vehicles [Value 068] and [Value 045] were observed in the area known as \"Alameda Las Tenis\", in Garabito, León XIII, Tibás, during the night hours of May 18, 2018, a site identified as another of the activity points of the investigated subjects. On May 17, 2018, in that same sector, judicial police officers observed vehicles [Value 056], [Value 070], and truck license plate [Value 069], which linked the zone to points where drug distribution could be taking place, also known as \"bunkers\" (cf. pages 64 to 65 of the judgment, according to its own pagination, and pages 51 to 53 of volume I of the principal docket). Said movements were documented in photographs, added to police report IP-297-EN18, in which motorcycles and other vehicles are even observed acting as an escort for the motor vehicles of police interest presumed to be transporting the drugs (*ibid*). At this point it is important to note that the experience held by judicial investigators allows them to determine details, behaviors, and/or circumstances that are characteristic of criminal activities (counter-surveillance, escorts, among others) and that to the eyes of any other citizen may seem inconsequential; therefore, it is clearly a valid indication (indicio) to be assessed in requests such as the one challenged by the defense.\n\nOn June 29, 2018, the visit of [Name 001] to the Centro de Atención Institucional El Buen Pastor was documented; he arrived at that location at 8:12 a.m., aboard vehicle license plate [Value 071]. However, as of 7:54 a.m., the police observed that, in the vicinity of the prison, vehicle license plate [Value 068] was parked, driven by [Name 029] (cf. p. 66 of the appealed judgment, according to its own foliation). Likewise, motorcycle license plate [Value 072], which was observed during the transfers of [Name 001], is registered in the name of [Name 091], sister of [Name 029] (Ibidem). Furthermore, as part of the surveillance conducted between September and October 2018, information was obtained that made it possible to verify the entry of vehicles used by the investigated subjects into one of the residences that were identified by police as being of interest for the activities of the alleged organization. Specifically, it was analyzed that: “on October 18, 2018 […] an operation was carried out in the sector of Tibás, León Trece, with the objective of verifying again the control by the investigated persons of the property in the sector known as “[...], it was indicated that at the time of entry, investigators [Name 092] and [Name 093] observed vehicle license plate [Value 045] parked outside the property, and inside the property’s garage, vehicle license plate [Value 056], a vehicle that the investigators already linked to [Name 161] alias [Name 083]” (appealed judgment, pp. 66 to 67 according to its own foliation). 3) Coincidence of the residence linked to [Name 001] in a previous investigation, with the property where [Name 029] was seen entering and leaving during the initial surveillance: In report IP-297-EN-2018, it was emphasized that during a previous investigation for the crime of drug trafficking (case no. 14000056-1219-PE), brought against [Name 001], confidential information was received that placed him as the leader of the criminal group, also pointing out that his place of residence was: “[...]” (cf. p. 44 of main volume I and pp. 63 to 64 of the appealed judgment, according to its own numbering). This is the same house from which, coincidentally, the officers in charge of the surveillance in the preliminary investigation under review observed [Name 029] leaving on various occasions, to then head to the residence of [Name 001] in Santo Domingo de Heredia (ibid.). 4) Use of the tactic of changing vehicles to complete a route, as a security mechanism by the person identified as the leader of the criminal organization. During the surveillance operations on [Name 001], carried out on June 15 and 29, 2018, he was observed stopping at certain points along his route to change vehicles, which at the police level was classified as a usual security technique used among those who seek to avoid being detected by the police or by adversaries in the illicit business (cf. pp. 55 to 666 of main volume I and 65 to 66 of the appealed judgment, according to its own numbering). Added to this is that during the first police surveillance, carried out on April 3, 2018, the police highlighted in their report that, upon leaving the visit he was making at the prison, [Name 001] decided to take a taxi to return to his house in Santo Domingo de Heredia, despite the fact that [Name 010] was waiting for him parked outside the prison where he had been visiting, after observing that [Name 010] was being approached by the police (cf. pp. 12 of volume I of the Interventions Dossier and pp. 53 to 54 of the judgment, according to its own foliation). 5) Compilation of registry data, use, and maintenance of vehicles observed in the follow-ups and surveillance. In the various follow-ups and surveillance operations, the judicial and administrative police observed the arrival and departure of several vehicles from the residence of [Name 001], as well as their circulation in the points of interest in León XIII and Cinco Esquinas: Hyundai minibus style, license plate [Value 066]; Toyota Yaris gold color, license plate [Value 045]; Mitsubishi Montero wine color, license plate [Value 068]; and Hyundai Santa Fe gray color, license plate [Value 067]. It was also determined that [Name 029], alias “[Name 083]” was responsible for paying the circulation fee (derecho de circulación) for vehicle license plate [Value 056], for the year 2017, and for the automobile [Value 068] in 2017 and 2018. Furthermore, he took the latter vehicle for a vehicle technical inspection (revisión técnica vehicular) in 2017 and 2018. He was also observed driving vehicle license plate [Value 068]. On the other hand, it was verified that [Name 161], alias “[Name 083]”, paid the circulation fees (derechos de circulación) for vehicles license plate [Value 045] and [Value 073] for the year 2018 and took the latter for a vehicle inspection (revisión vehicular) in 2018; likewise, he was observed driving the first automobile (cf. police report IP-297-EN-18 at pp. 24 to 28 and 30 of main volume I and pp. 61 and 63 of the appealed ruling, according to its own foliation).\n\nRegarding these motor vehicles, it is important to note that they are the same ones observed by officers of the Organismo de Investigación Judicial in various surveillances and that, according to police experience, they had been detected in dynamics that were typical of the criminal activity under investigation. **6) Surveillance cameras installed as security devices at the residence of the person confidentially identified as the leader of the organization.** The judicial police documented through photographs (cfr. f. 5 of volume I of the main expediente) several cameras installed on the façade of the residence of [Nombre 001] (cfr. f. 53 of the appealed judgment, according to its own foliation). **7) Prior record for drug trafficking of the person identified as the leader of the investigated criminal organization.** [Nombre 001] held the status of accused in case no. 14-000056-1219-PE, prosecuted for drug trafficking (cfr. f. 30 of main volume I and fs. 59 and 63 of the appealed ruling, according to its own foliation). **8) Police linkage of the criminal structure:** Both the Dirección de Inteligencia Policial of the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, and the IBRIGE and IBASE databases, operationally link [Nombre 001], alias \"[Nombre 084]\", as a hierarchical figure within a criminal structure of which [Nombre 161] and [Nombre 029] would also form part, as trusted collaborators, also establishing links with [Nombre 096], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 050] (cfr. fs. 57 to 59 of the appealed ruling, according to its own foliation). **9) Seizure of a firearm during surveillance.** On April 3, 2018, during the first police surveillance carried out in this case, a firearm was seized from [Nombre 010]. Although the appellant disputes that it is false that [Nombre 010] did not have a permit to carry said weapon, the relevant piece of information that remained documented by the police officers who approached the Toyota Prado vehicle, license plate [Valor 070] on that date, is that he was carrying a firearm when he drove the leader of the criminal organization to the prison where the latter was heading for a prison visit (cfr. f. 12 of volume I of the Legajo de Intervenciones and f. 53 of the appealed judgment, according to its own foliation), since this fact supports the existence of an entire protection system for the leader of the organization, identified as [Nombre 001], by his subordinates. **Intellectual analysis of the circumstantial evidence examined by the trial court regarding the appropriateness of the limitations on the right to privacy for evidentiary purposes:** In accordance with the foregoing summary of circumstantial elements, it is clear that the decision to authorize the interception of communications from the lines associated with the numbers [Valor 077] and [Valor 063] was not made based on data originating from the year 2013, as the appellant claims, but rather derives from tailing and surveillance activities that began between March and April of 2018 and ended in October of the same year, that is, a few weeks before the issuance of the jurisdictional resolution authorizing the interference with the right to privacy that is being discussed here (November 1, 2018). Now, the challenge raised by the technical defense has as its starting point the complaint that in the case under review, the requirement to verify the existence of indicia of the commission of a crime was not met, as required by article 9 of Law No. 7425, entitled \"*Ley sobre registro, secuestro y examen de documentos privados e intervención de las comunicaciones*\", in accordance with the provisions of article 15 of Law No. 8754 \"*Ley contra la Delincuencia Organizada*\". In particular, the first of these norms states, in relevant part: \"[…] *the interception may only be authorized if there are sufficient indicia that a criminal activity is being carried out*\". Thus, what is required is a weighing of the existence of indicia that allow the prosecution's theory to be considered plausible, regarding the participation of the subjects who would be affected by the requested measure in a criminal act, and not a demonstration of certainty of participation in the illicit act, since the latter is required only for the issuance of a conviction. The Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia del Tercer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela has referred to this elementary distinction in resolution no. 2017-330, at 2:26 p.m. on May 12, 2017, a pronouncement which, for its clarity, is worth mentioning: \"*it must be emphasized that on numerous occasions, in the practice of the Courts, it is not considered that the degree of linkage required between the indicator fact and the unknown fact is not of the same nature or intensity if what is intended to be supported is a judgment on the criminal responsibility of a person or merely a judgment to enable the restriction of a fundamental right through the actions (police apprehension, vehicle search) under study. For the first scenario, the linkage of the indicator with a rule of experience must allow a conclusion about the existence and authorship of the crime to be deduced* with certainty *(beyond any reasonable doubt); while for the second scenario, it will suffice (since it is not legitimate to demand more than that in stages such as investigation, that is, before a judgment is issued at trial) that the linkage of the indicator with the rule of experience allows a deduction* with a reasonable degree of probability *that a crime is being committed […] these stages of analysis are constantly confused, thereby demanding a proven indication of guilt (which by definition can only be held with certainty, after a debate) where only an indication of a reasonable probability of the commission of a crime was required […] This distinction is essential, since if a judgment of certainty were required on those aspects at initial moments of the proceeding (such as the investigation stage), not only would the gradual nature with which \"the truth\" is constructed during the proceeding be ignored (that is, the verification or falsification of the hypotheses at play), but it would also hinder the possibility of carrying out or expanding an investigation, obtaining evidence, preventing the commission of crimes and impunity, which criminal procedural law and the corresponding organic law entrust to the judicial police. In short, without a doubt, the indicator facts must be duly and lawfully demonstrated both to authorize the police apprehension of a subject, as well as to legitimize the search of the interior of a motor vehicle, but it is erroneous to claim - as the lower court did - that at the time these police actions are carried out, an inference with a degree of certainty about the existence and authorship of a specific illicit act is already required*\" [sic] (emphasis supplied). Although the preceding ruling alludes to the impact on the right to the private sphere of individuals, derived from conducting a checkpoint and vehicle search, the reasons outlined therein are fully applicable to other types of restrictions on the same fundamental right for investigative purposes, such as when requesting the interception of communications. Factors such as the type of investigation at hand, the procedural phase in which the matter is found, the exhaustion of less harmful means to continue the inquiries, and the degree of impact on the fundamental rights involved must be taken into account to establish what degree of circumstantial linkage with the commission of the act should be required and how reasonable the restriction would be that would be produced through the evidentiary technique. In any case, it must be clear that, while to issue a conviction a judgment of certainty about the guilt of the accused in the acts attributed to them must be reached, the existence of \"sufficient indicia\" is enough to authorize telephone interception.\n\nIn that sense, this Chamber adopts the criterion expressed by the Court of Appeals of Judgment of Cartago, in resolution No. 2017-00262, of 13:52 hours on May 26, 2017, in which it indicated: «[…] it must be pointed out that neither the Political Constitution nor Law No. 7425 make any reference to the concept of probability referred to by the appellant, but rather it is the aforementioned law that refers to the terminology of \"sufficient evidence (indicios suficientes)\", which denotes a state of knowledge distinct from that of probability, because it is situated in the realm of suspicion, which terminologically means: \"To consider someone as a possible perpetrator of a crime or an offense\" (Real Academia Española, 2017). It is important to mention that the legislation indicates that this suspicion must be sufficient, so the simple imagination of police bodies would not be enough, but rather there must be evidence that reasonably allows inferring the possibility of the commission of one of the crimes established in the law». Regarding the infringement of fundamental rights during the investigation phase, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had ruled in a similar sense in resolution No. 2006-00712, of 10:45 hours on August 7, 2006: «[...] the raid (allanamiento) is based on a presumptive criterion and has the purpose of searching the site and seizing objects of utility for the investigation –which may or may not occur– it will be duly documented in the minutes prepared for that purpose. In this regard, this Chamber has pointed out how in the investigative phase: “… suspicions are handled regarding the possible participation of certain persons in a specific criminal act, in reality there is no concrete charge to attribute –an indispensable requirement of any accusation (imputación), even if informal– […] And the existence of founded suspicions is the essential element that the judge must weigh when authorizing a proceeding of this nature, because it will involve the infringement of a fundamental right that only proceeds in exceptional cases, in harmony with the provisions of Articles 23 and 28, second paragraph, of the Political Constitution.” (Third Chamber, # 468-99, of 9:20 hours on April 23, 1999)». Therefore, private defense counsel Mena Ayales is not correct, who alleged in his appeal that «one should not intervene to investigate», because precisely the intervention of telephone communications constitutes an exceptional investigative tool, provided by the legislator for the clarification of especially serious acts. If it were required to have a degree of probability so high that it subsequently serves as the basis for a declaration of criminal liability by certainty —as the appellant seems to maintain—, the interception (interceptación) of communications would not only be unnecessary, but also improper, because when there is a body of evidence suitable to prove the commission of an unlawful act beyond all reasonable doubt, the investigative proceedings that affect fundamental rights lose their justification and become improper. Furthermore, in practice, it would be entirely unnecessary to carry out an intervention under those conditions. Under the framework of these considerations, the joint analysis of the evidence that was assessed by the criminal judge of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, prior to authorizing the intervention of communications, passes the test of verifying the existence of a judgment of sufficient evidence regarding the intervention of [Name 161] and ([Name 004]) in the activity of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs. Moreover, in his appeal claim, the technical defense disputes the viability of the evidence to prove the existence of a judgment of probability of the commission of illicit activity by both accused persons (sindicados), but to do so it takes as its starting point the individual assessment of said evidence. Such a position is erroneous and, as already indicated, it is their joint consideration that allows determining that the judicial authorization is in accordance with the Law. The comprehensive analysis of the evidence existing at the time the request was made allowed establishing that the intervention of communications was a reasonable and proportional limitation of the co-defendants' right to privacy, in order to determine the roles fulfilled by them in the illicit enterprise. Although it is true that, when resolving the defective procedural activity that was raised regarding the extreme under discussion, the a quo repeatedly referred to the content of report IP-297-EN18, this is because it contains the detail of the investigative activity and the police inferences that motivated the Prosecutor's Office (Fiscalía) to raise the initial request for telephone intervention. However, the references of interest were also accompanied by the conclusions that the trial judges derive from said material. Upon declaring without merit the defective procedural activity that questioned the legality of the interception of communications ordered by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, at 7:50 hours on November 1, 2018, the objections related to the evidence derived from it also fall, in application of the fruit of the poisonous tree theory, as put forward by Attorneys Mena and Solórzano. It is not omitted to indicate that defense counsel Mena Ayales affirmed in his appeal that the order to access private information was contained within the resolution that ordered the raid proceeding (allanamiento) in this case, which was based on the communications generated as a product of the intervention order, therefore it is understood that it also requires a declaration of illegality. However, this Chamber finds no irregularity in the actions of the guarantees judge that must be declared. The raid order contains the corresponding evidentiary analysis for each of the investigated persons regarding their probable participation in criminal activities of drug trafficking and/or money laundering (legitimación de capitales). In that understanding, the order to access private information is based on the same intellective foundation and, in light of the evidence that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) intended to seize, it was suitable, necessary, and proportional, in order to obtain elements of proof that would allow the clarification of the facts. By virtue of the foregoing, a declaration of any irregularity in relation to said judicial pronouncement is not appropriate. Regarding the lack of reasoning of the seizure order for private information, questioned by Attorney Mena Ayales: Finally, the technical defense points out that the authorization for seizure and analysis of private information issued by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, by resolution of 10:00 hours on May 10, 2021 (pages 3693 to 3707 of volume VIII of the main judicial file (expediente)), lacks proper reasoning. After examining said pronouncement in detail, the opposite is concluded. The first paragraph of Article 18 of the Law against Organized Crime provides: «In every investigation for organized crime, the lifting of bank secrecy (secreto bancario) of the accused persons or of the natural or legal persons linked to the investigation shall proceed. The order shall be issued by the judge, at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office». In particular, from page 3697 verso to page 3704 recto, the judge analyzes the existence of evidence of participation of those charged in the crimes under investigation —drug trafficking, aggravated homicide, and money laundering—.\n\nIn addition to referring to the analysis of evidence it had in the authorizations for communication interceptions (intervención de comunicaciones) and the search warrant (orden de allanamiento) previously issued, the jurisdictional authority conducted a recount of the consecutive telephone calls containing information of interest to link, to a degree of probability, [Nombre 001], [Nombre 161], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 022], ([Nombre 013]), [Nombre 007], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 050], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 046] and [Nombre 019], with the criminal activities under investigation (cfr. fs. 3699 front to 3700 back). The judge of guarantees (juez de garantías) indicated that, since money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was one of the conducts of interest, access to private information that would allow clarity regarding the flow of income and financial movements, expenses, businesses, employment status, tax or customs activity, registered or transferred assets, or even the value of insured assets, was pertinent and relevant, besides being the only legal means for obtaining it. In those terms, he stated that the private documentation to which the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) requested access would allow determining the economic level of the suspect individuals and those in whose name various assets of interest in the criminal summary proceedings (sumaria penal) appear. He explained that it is common in criminal organizations dedicated to the illicit trafficking of narcotics to use different means to conceal the illicit origin of the high-value assets to which they have access, as a product of the criminal enterprise. Adding to this, in the specific case, it was known that the person identified as the leader of the organization had control over different real estate located in the Valle Central and other assets of high economic value, which were not consistent with any commercial activity or licit income on his part. In particular, the dwelling of [Nombre 001], located in León XIII, stood out for its size and characteristics, which strengthened the prosecutorial thesis regarding his hierarchical position in the criminal group dedicated to obtaining profit through drug dealing. The judge placed special emphasis on the fact that the group executed security operations on different occasions to evade police control, used coded language, that its members made changes to telephone lines, and that the assets were enjoyed or possessed by people other than those in whose name they were held, all aspects that supported the proportionality, reasonableness, and necessity of the seizure (secuestro) of private information that would allow clarifying the origin of the detected asset increase and its possible link to the illegal drug trade (cfr. f. 3698 front and back). In this regard, the judge referred to specific instances such as, for example, that in the name of [Nombre 097], brother of [Nombre 029], the BMW vehicle with license plate [Valor 074] was registered, despite not being a salaried employee (cfr. fs. 3701 back to 3702 front). Likewise, the ruling analyzed that the dwelling in Residencial [Nombre 056], Santo Domingo de Heredia, whose ownership is police-linked to [Nombre 001], is in the name of his mother-in-law, who reports only an old-age pension as income (f. 3702 front). It is thus that the evidentiary analysis (análisis indiciario) conducted by the judge, in light of the state of progress of the investigation and the crimes whose clarification motivated the prosecutorial request, allows determining that the authorization for the seizure of private information challenged by the technical defense (defensa técnica) meets the legality parameters that must be observed in a limitation of fundamental rights of this type. In conclusion, this Chamber concludes that both the authorization for the interception of communications ordered by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José (Juzgado Penal del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José), at 7:53 a.m. on November 1, 2018, and the order for the seizure and analysis of private information issued by that same authority, by resolution at 10:00 a.m. on May 10, 2021, were issued in accordance with the law. Under such perspective, the declaration without merit of the defective procedural acts (actividades procesales defectuosas) filed by the technical defense against said authorizations must be upheld. Consequently, the first ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by defender Mena Ayales is declared without merit (sin lugar), as well as the first ground of the challenge (impugnación) filed by attorney Solórzano Hernández, representing [Nombre 029].\n\nIX. Second claim of the appeal of sentence (recurso de apelación de sentencia) filed by private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández representing [Nombre 029]. She alleges \"Violation of the principles of defense, statement of reasons (fundamentación), accusation (imputación), and due process.\" The Master Solórzano Hernández states that in this matter, the prosecutorial request (requerimiento fiscal) falls short of the requirement for a precise and detailed account of the factual framework (marco fáctico) being accused. She indicates that, to comply with the foregoing, the conditions of manner, time, and place in which the events occurred must necessarily be indicated, which does not constitute merely a procedural formality but, beyond that, enables an effective exercise of the defense. She argues that \"if the accusation is limited to a mere enumeration of evidence or an imprecise description, the right to defense would be violated, as the necessary information to contradict the charges would not be provided. If the accusation is limited to a mere enumeration of evidence or an imprecise description, the right to defense would be violated, as the necessary information to contradict the charges would not be provided\" (f. 7459 back). She considers that, in this matter, the breach of said duty prevented her client from adequately preparing his defense strategy.\n\nIt indicates, in this regard, that in points 4.1 to 4.5 of the accusatory factual framework, actions supposedly carried out by the co-defendants [Name 029] and [Name 026] are described in an absolutely vague and generic manner, without specifying where, how, and when the \"designation\" of ([Name 004]) to fulfill a role within the alleged criminal group occurred. Regarding the transportation of drugs, it laments the failure to specify when said action occurred, what type of drug and specific quantity was transported. It argues that, for example, the quantity transported would make it possible to distinguish between a transfer for personal use and an illicit one. It adds that \"the lack of reference to the seizure of the drug and the description of the material circumstances related to the punishable act prevents the defense from accessing the evidentiary elements necessary to refute or contrast the accusation\" (f. 7461 fte.). As an additional grievance, it points out that the correct application of procedural law (Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; numeral 41 of the Political Constitution, as well as articles 142, 184, 303, and 365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal)), would have led to an acquittal as a consequence of the ineffectiveness of the accusation. **The ground is dismissed**. To respond to the complaint, it is necessary to outline the facts accused and subsequently held as proven in the judgment, which relate to [Name 029]: \"*1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the town of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: • The storage and dosage of the drug stashes acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of the stashes to the various points of sale. • The sale of drug stashes owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory.*\"\n\n• The marketing of drug caches belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug-dependent individuals, through the properties held by the organization for \"Bunker\"-type purposes, as well as on public roads in the areas under the organization's control. • The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking to employ various means for that purpose. 3.- This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction: the marketing of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: [...] • [Nombre 029]: member of the criminal group; he figured as one of the leader's trusted persons; his duties included, among other functions, coordinating and executing all actions aimed at the security and protection of [Nombre 001] and his family nucleus; in addition, under the direction and supervision of the leader, he personally carried out the deliveries of drug caches that the organization marketed to other criminal structures; he was also responsible, in association with his romantic partner, the accused [Nombre 026], for the collection and safeguarding of the money derived from the illicit activity carried out by the narco structure; moreover, he was one of the members of the group designated to recruit third parties outside the organization for the purpose of having them facilitate their accounts at various financial entities in order to move through them the money derived from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the organization [...]. 4.1 As part of the operational model employed by the Criminal Organization, the accused [Nombre 001] designated the accused [Nombre 029] to carry out deliveries of narcotics to other criminal organizations rooted in the Central Valley, for which they used a Mitsubishi brand, Montero style vehicle, license plate number [Valor 075], which had compartments specially designed for the transport of narcotic caches; likewise, the administration of the money derived from drug trafficking was delegated to the accused [Nombre 026] and ([Nombre 004]). 4.2 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029] regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 6, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the dwelling located at [...], an amount of approximately 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.3 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029] regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 21, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the dwelling located at [...], an amount of approximately 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.4 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029] regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 31, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the dwelling located at [...], an amount of approximately 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.5 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, in the period of 2018 until the month of October 2020, the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029] were in charge of the recruitment function of third persons, who were responsible for making deposits of money derived from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as performing the functions of currency exchange and purchase, with the purpose of incorporating the money derived from drug trafficking into the national banking system. 4.6 In the span from April 2018 until the month of April 2019, the criminal organization led by the accused [Nombre 001] sold, marketed, and supplied unauthorized drugs to the criminal organization led by [Nombre 099] (Imprisoned in Nicaragua), which was operationally directed on Costa Rican soil by the person identified as [Nombre 137]. 4.7 The methodology used by both criminal organizations consisted of [Nombre 001] designating the accused [Nombre 029] to transport narcotic caches, using the Mitsubishi brand, Montero style vehicle, license plate number [Valor 075], periodically, from the properties designated for drug storage by this criminal group, in the center of criminal operations in the León XIII housing project, drugs that were marketed with the organization directed by [Nombre 137], to the property located at [...], black gate on the right side, a site where the person identified as [Nombre 101] (member of [Nombre 137]'s Organization) stored and guarded the narcotics, which the criminal group subsequently processed, dosed, and marketed at the different drug sale points where this criminal group was rooted in the Central Valley.\n\n4.8 This methodology for the commercialization of drugs continued during the period of the month of April 2018 and until April 3, 2019, the date on which operational tasks were carried out by the Drug Enforcement Section (Sección de Estupefacientes) of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), in which the arrest of 21 persons was achieved, in addition to the operational leader of the criminal group [Name 137], as well as the seizure of 12.28 grams of Cannabis Sativa shredded plant material, one plastic wrapper containing 0.30 grams of Ketamine powder solid, one plastic wrapper containing 0.48 grams of Ketamine, one transparent plastic wrapper containing 1.23 grams of Ketamine powder solid, one plastic wrapper containing inside it 0.11 grams of cocaine hydrochloride, and 1437 plastic wrappers, of which at least 1078 contain an estimated net [Name 153] of 79.8 grams of cocaine hydrochloride fragments, drugs that were destined for illegal commercialization at the drug sales points controlled by the organization of [Name 137]. (Facts Investigated in case 18-000017-1219-PE) [...]\n\n4.33 In the period between May 3 and 17, 2019, the criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001], in accordance with the operational model for the commercialization of drugs, designated the accused [Name 029] to carry out the transfer of shipments of narcotics from the criminal group's operations center in [...], which was used by the persons identified as [Name 102], [Name 107], [Name 104], and [Name 105], for the storage, dosing, and distribution of unauthorized drugs. 4.34 On May 16, 2019, at 00:20 hours, the accused [Name 029], following the instructions given by the hierarchy of the criminal group and adhering to the operational model used for drug trafficking and trade, transferred a shipment of narcotics from San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, Alameda las Tennis, using the vehicle make Mitsubishi, style Montero, license plate [Value 075], to the property located in [...], a place where the accused ([Name 004]) entered for a few minutes and subsequently withdrew. 4.35 On May sixteenth, two thousand nineteen, at 18:51 hours, in [...], the defendants [Name 106], [Name 107], and [Name 108] stored, prepared, processed, and possessed for unauthorized use with intent to sell, specifically, cocaine hydrochloride and crack cocaine base. 4.36 Thus, that same day, May sixteenth, two thousand nineteen, at around 18:51 hours, the defendant [Name 105] appeared at the residence under investigation where the narcotics supplied by ([Name 004]) were stored, aboard the vehicle make Toyota, RAV-4, black color, metal plates [Value 076], from which he descended and was handed by the defendant ([Name 107]) a bag containing two thousand five hundred twenty-one plastic wrappers with cocaine fragments and two plastic wrappers with a total of 200.27 grams of powder solid with cocaine, who then proceeded to leave the site, at which moment he was approached by officers of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), who carried out his arrest and the seizure of the drugs he was transporting.\n\n4.37 By reason of the foregoing, on May seventeenth, two thousand nineteen, at 09:40 hours, a raid (allanamiento) was carried out at the dwelling where the accused [Name 029] delivered narcotics, a location where the following were found: utensils typical of the commercialization, processing, and preparation of psychotropic substances, such as; a black and silver digital scale, plastic wrappers, sodium bicarbonate, razor blades, as well as the seizure of fifty plastic wrappers with fragments containing cocaine, a bag with residue of fragments containing cocaine, and two wrappers with 2004.16 grams of a solid compact substance containing cocaine, a drug that was stored and intended to be commercialized with third parties, and which was supplied by the criminal organization led by [Name 001]; likewise, the seizure of one million four hundred eighty thousand seventy-five colones (1,480,075.00) was achieved, cash in small denominations, proceeds from drug trafficking activity, and the arrest of [Name 106], [Name 107] and [Name 108] (Facts investigated in preliminary proceedings 19-014179-0042-PE) [...]\n\n5.- During the investigation period between the months of April 2018 and until the month of October 2020, the Criminal Organization comprised of the investigated parties [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016] and [Name 019], as a consequence of the significant illicit profits produced from the serious activity of trafficking and selling narcotics, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001] [...]\n\n6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, raid, search, and seizure (allanamiento, registro y secuestro) proceedings were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts and which is set forth below [...]\n\n6.8 Regarding the result of the raid, search, and seizure proceedings, carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], the following result was obtained and corresponds to objects acquired with money proceeds from drug trafficking: • A black and pink notebook with the legend Femme, with the brand on the upper right edge \"El líder\" with a total of (98) pages with notes of various accounts. • A gray cell phone brand Huawei, model Huawei MLA-L02, without visible IMEI. • A black cell phone brand Nokia with IMEI number 352905101877359, with a SIM card, brand Movistar with the numbering 8950604001911308753F. • A total amount of cash of ¢323,000.00 colones Three Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand Colones, money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused.\n\n• A receipt of money to third parties from the Ministry of Justice and Peace, CAI Vilma Curling Rivera where [Name 029] receives, with an adhesive sheet bearing the name of [Name 155]. • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, pink color IMEI 355734070780270 with a SIM card with no visible brand with the number 8950604302807581416; additionally, a Samsung brand cell phone, black color, was collected with IMEI 355286105100636, IMEI #2 355286105100644, with a Movistar SIM card with the number 8950604001907110389F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand 4GB. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black color, IMEI 866368040451035 with a Claro SIM card with the number 3950603018885857562F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand 4GB» (cfr. fs. 276 to 313 of the judgment). From the analysis of the preceding passage, this Court considers that the defense is incorrect and that the imputation of charges attributed to [Name 029] is consistent with the requirements of numeral 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), in that it clearly, precisely, and circumstantially describes the typical actions of the crimes of drug trafficking in its aggravated form and money laundering (legitimación de capitales). The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), with respect to the principle of imputation (principio de imputación), stated in resolution No. 2021-1459, at 10:27 a.m. on December 9, 2021, the following: «V. [...] Pursuant to what has been described, the requirements of the accusatory instrument are set forth in ordinal 303 of the Procedural Code, which stipulates: “Accusation and request for trial opening. When the Public Ministry considers that the investigation provides grounds to subject the accused to a public trial, it shall submit the accusation requesting the trial opening. The accusation shall contain: a) The data serving to identify the accused. b) The precise and circumstantial account of the punishable act attributed. c) The grounds for the accusation, with the statement of the elements of conviction that motivate it. d) The citation of applicable legal precepts. e) The offer of evidence to be presented at trial. With the accusation, the Public Ministry shall forward to the judge the proceedings and the evidence in its possession that may be incorporated into the debate.” Consequently, the aforementioned subsection a) of that normative precept has a significant connection with the right of defense and the principle of imputation (principio de imputación), since, taking as a starting point the factual circumstances attributed in the prosecutorial reproach, the accused will have the power to materialize his material and technical defense; however, the requirement regarding the determination of temporal, modal, and spatial situations will depend on the type of offense charged against the defendant and on the particularities of the case. That is, the balance with the right of defense is not disputed, it being essential that the accused party be able to understand the conduct reproached to him in order to refute it [...] A topic analyzed repeatedly by the Chamber, detailing the need to assess each particular matter with the purpose of specifying whether or not the requirement of a specific temporal determination is mandatory. In that sense, the jurisprudence has held: “...The precision of the imputed facts must be measured not only by the variable of time, but by virtue of the other conditions of space and mode, as well as other individualizing details of the event, that can be derived from the investigation. (...) It is not possible to set general limits or rules regarding the duration of the acceptable temporal period for delimiting facts, applicable to all cases of crimes\n\nExpediente No. 18-000104-1219-PE – Voto No. 2025-0039\n_________________________________________________________________________________________________\nI Circuito Judicial de San José, San José, Edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Tercer Piso. Teléfonos: 2211-5349, 2211-5350\no 2211-5351. Correo electrónico: sjo-tpenalapela-jedo@Poder-Judicial.go.cr\nPág. 1\n\nof a sexual nature in which minors or incapacitated persons figure as aggrieved. The cognitive maturity characteristics of the affected person, the nature of the facts, their age, and the periodic or repetitive character that the accused actions may have must all be considered.” (Third Chamber, ruling No. 2015-862, at 9:29 a.m. on June 26, 2015. Panel of Magistrates Chinchilla Sandí, Ramírez Quirós, Arias Madrigal, Cortés Coto and Zúñiga Morales) [...]». Despite the fact that the previous excerpt alludes to accusations for periods of time carried out in matters where minors figure as the aggrieved party, the stated criterion is applicable to any type of criminal activity, inasmuch as it will be the particularities of each case that determine the effective possibilities of concreteness in the imputation of charges, and based on these it can be corroborated whether the adequate exercise of the right of defense by the accused person is feasible. However, in the case at hand, the picture is quite clear, since the accusation made by the Public Ministry allows understanding with complete clarity the actions attributed to [Name 029]. Note that in facts 1 and 2, as a preamble, the existence of a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking and its mode of operation is described, of which [Name 029] was a part. In the third fact, the functions that said accused carried out within the criminal organization are described, and these are coincident with the actions explained in the following points. It is important to highlight that these initial facts highlight spatial and temporal circumstances that frame the rest of the factual description, since it is indicated that the criminal organization operated at least between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, in various localities of the Central Valley (Valle Central). Now, starting from fact 4.1, the specific actions imputed to [Name 029] are described in detail, which consisted, basically, in the delivery of drugs to other criminal organizations, by express delegation from [Name 001], as well as the administration of the money obtained as payment, its deposit into accounts of members of the organization, and the conversion of the capital into foreign currency through third parties. Regarding the drug trafficking, facts 4.6 and 4.7 detail that the criminal structure of which the defendant was a part sold, commercialized, and supplied drugs to another criminal organization, led by a subject identified as [Name 099]. It is clearly indicated that the person in charge of transporting that trafficked drug was [Name 029], an activity he carried out in the Mitsubishi vehicle, Montero model, license plate [Value 068]. Here it is established that the transports were carried out from Ciudadela León XIII in Tibás to the locality of Desamparados. Although the previous subsections did not detail what type of drug was trafficked, point 4.8 clarifies that circumstance, by describing the class and quantities of drugs confiscated from the recipient criminal organization. Then, in facts 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36 and 4.37, reference is made to the supply of drugs to another criminal organization, which is temporally framed from May 3 to 17, 2019. Once again, it is highlighted that the defendant [Name 029] was the member of the criminal organization whose task it was to carry out the transport of the drugs from Ciudadela León XIII in Tibás, to Aserrí, in the vicinity of the cemetery. It is explained that for these purposes, the justiciable used the vehicle with plate [Value 068] —the same mentioned previously— and it is clarified that one of these transport actions was allegedly carried out on May 16, 2019. The recipients of the drug are identified and the type of trafficked substance is then specified, namely cocaine. Then, fact 5, in a general manner, likewise refers that the criminal organization of which the justiciable was a part, in the period from April 2018 to October 2020, carried out actions to acquire, convert, and transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets, knowing that they were acquired as a product of the criminal activity of drug trafficking. Points 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 describe clearly that the accused ([Name 004]), together with his wife, had under their custody in their home, money obtained as a product of the criminal activity. In each of the events, the date and the specific amounts are indicated. Then, in point 4.5, to complete the imputation, it is outlined that the accused and his wife recruited third parties for the purpose of making money deposits, as well as currency exchange, for the subsequent incorporation of that illicit capital into the national banking system. Finally, in fact 5, it is described that the accused carried out actions aimed at acquiring, converting, transmitting assets of economic interest, as well as concealing the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over different assets or their ownership, which must be read in conjunction with facts 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, where the composition of those actions is specified. From all of the foregoing, it is possible to derive that the imputation made to the defendant ([Name 004]) consisted in that, between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, he formed part of a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking and that the actions he carried out within it consisted of the material action of transporting the drug for its delivery to other criminal organizations, as well as the administration of the money obtained as payment, which was converted into foreign currency through the use of third parties, such that the defense's assertion is untrue, in the sense that the accusation prevented the accused from understanding the facts attributed and, based on that knowledge, from developing his defense strategy. While it is true that it is common, in accusations related to drug trafficking, for the factual account to include descriptions that are descriptive of investigation acts, as in this case the detail of the raids carried out and the confiscations derived from them, with respect to the justiciable, these points do not constitute the core of the imputation, but rather clarify certain circumstances, such as the type of drug that was trafficked and the quantities. Therefore, the defense's assessment is incorrect, when it asserts that the factual description did not contain that information. The appellant seems to understand that the fact that no specific date is included when the defendant [Name 001] recruited and designated [Name 029] to carry out the actions related to the management and administration of the illicit capital constitutes a defect in the imputation. However, said aspect does not have the weight that one attempts to assign it. The correct imputation of the facts does not imply millimetric precision regarding the time and date on which each of the aspects surrounding the event of interest occurred.\n\nRather, it implies a description that includes sufficient parameters of mode, time, and space so that, in light of the elements of interest for the criminal type or types in question, it is possible for the accused person to effectively exercise their right to defense. In the present case, the actions that conform to the typical description of numeral 69 of Law No. 8204 do contain information on time, place, and mode, which, as indicated, consisted of the initial custody of the money in the accused's home and the use of third parties to carry out the conversion of that money into foreign currency. Likewise, in relation to drug trafficking, the actions deployed by the accused are clearly described and consisted basically of the transfer of the drug that was being trafficked by the organization for delivery to other criminal structures. The fact that the specific amount supplied on each occasion is not indicated is not an indispensable requirement, since the truth is that the charge does allow an understanding that it was drugs intended for other organizations to traffic with third parties, from which the possibility that its purpose was the accused's personal consumption is discarded, an aspect that is likewise clarified with the details of the seizures made by the judicial police. Regarding the identity of the drug, as already indicated, it is clarified from the charge itself, when reference is made to the incautations carried out through the operational actions executed by the Organismo de Investigación Judicial, which demonstrate that they involved illicit substances, of those described in Article 1 of Law No. 8204. Based on the considerations set forth, this Chamber concludes that the prosecutorial accusation offered sufficient information for the defendant [Name 029] to understand the actions constituting drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) attributed to him and that, based on that knowledge, he could develop his technical and material defense strategy. By virtue of the foregoing, the alleged defect is dismissed and what proceeds is to declare without merit the first ground of appeal formulated by the technical defense. \n\n**X. Second ground of the appeal against the judgment filed personally by [Name 029].** He alleges \"*Lack of intellectual evidentiary reasoning regarding the statement given in debate by the appellant*\". He states that his deposition given verbally at trial (see folio 103 of the ruling), \"*offers details of my work activity that justify the facts of which I am accused, being a driver for a person, taking vehicles from various clients to Riteve and serving as a mechanic for different people*\" (folio 7348 verso). He alleges that, in the provision of his services, the law did not oblige him to know who the people contracting him were. However, international instruments —in particular the Inter-American Court of Human Rights— oblige judges to weigh his statement in light of the accused facts and the remaining evidence offered by the parties. The grievance consists, according to the material defense, in the issuance of a conviction without taking into account the statement of the co-defendant ([Name 004]), as a source of evidence. Based on the foregoing, he requests that the contested judgment be annulled and the matter be remanded for a new trial. **Third claim corresponding to the appeal against the judgment filed by the co-defendant [Name 029].** He accuses \"*Disagreement with the determination of the facts*\". The appellant sets out the facts proven against him, which correspond to points 4 to 4.5 and 5 of the accusatory pleading. He indicates that, based on the same factual framework that accuses him of recruiting people to make deposits into bank accounts, he is sanctioned for two different crimes: drug trafficking and money laundering. He considers that it violates constitutional numeral 42 and numeral 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), that he be convicted of two different crimes based on the same factual framework, since \"*in the reasoning for the drug trafficking conviction, that recruitment is used as a phase of the drug trafficking crime, my contribution to the alleged organization, subsequently in the reasoning for the conviction for the crime of money laundering, the same argument of recruiting people to make deposits is used as the main basis for that conviction*\" (folio 7349 verso). He cites in his support, ruling No. 809-F-97 of the former Criminal Cassation Court of San José (Tribunal de Casación Penal de San José). He adds that the reasoning for both illicit acts is the same, which also violates numeral 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He maintains, as a grievance, that he is convicted of two different crimes based on the same facts and the same reasoning. He requests, based on the foregoing, that the decision be annulled and the case be remanded for trial for a single crime of drug trafficking. **Fourth objection corresponding to the appeal against the judgment filed personally by [Name 029].** He accuses \"*Disagreement with the assessment of the evidence*.\" The appellant argues that the circumstantial evidence related to him could not be confirmed. In this regard, he alleges that \"*no seizures were obtained from my person, I was not observed selling narcotics nor were there third-party seizures in my case, nor could the alleged cash deposits be materialized in any financial institution*\" (folio 7350 verso). He explains that he was convicted solely based on telephone conversations that could not be verified and, therefore, of an amphibological nature, insufficient to support a conviction. Contrary to this, he argues that circumstantial evidence must be serious, precise, and concordant, which is not the case in this matter. He indicates, as a grievance, that he was sentenced for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering, based on circumstantial evidence that does not meet the parameters set by the judges themselves. He requests the annulment of the judgment, a new trial, and his freedom. **Third objection corresponding to the appeal in cassation filed by the private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández on behalf of [Name 029].** She accuses **\"*Erroneous assessment of the evidence*\"** . Master Solórzano Hernández argues that the *a quo* omitted to adequately assess the \"*defense evidence presented by the appealing party*\" (cf. folio 7463 front). She explains, in addition to this, that \"*the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the transportation of narcotics in the vehicle mentioned in the judgment was ignored, as well as to the handling of the illicit money* […] *there is no reliable evidence demonstrating that [Name 029] had direct possession or administration of the sums of money mentioned in the judgment, nor that he made the deliveries of narcotics to other criminal organizations, so the possession of drug caches was never materialized in [Name 029]*\" (ibid.). In the introductory part of her appeal, before formulating the grounds for the appeal against the judgment (cf. folios 7453 front to 7455 front.), the appellant points out claims that, due to their connection with the complaint contained in the third ground of the challenge, should be resolved jointly. In particular, she affirms that the coded language obtained from the telephone interceptions cannot serve as the sole evidentiary support for the conviction. Therefore, the reference made to \"*babies*\" and \"*half babies*\" (see folio 7453 verso) without a clear context and without additional evidence that permits reliably establishing its meaning, cannot lead to the conviction of the existence of criminal activity. She mentions in her support, ruling No. 2023-01027 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). She argues that, due to the lack of intellectual evidentiary reasoning, her client was sentenced to 24 years in prison despite the principle of derivation and the presumption of innocence having been violated. She requests the direct issuance of an acquittal due to lack of evidentiary elements supporting the conviction; and subsidiarily, remand for a new trial. The claims must be declared without merit. Contrary to what the appellants have affirmed, in the opinion of this Chamber, the facts held as proven in the judgment and that emanate directly from those described in the prosecutorial accusation, allow an understanding of the actions constituting drug trafficking and those of money laundering. As indicated in the preceding considering clause, the overall description of the events allows the alleged facts to be known and understood; moreover, it provides sufficient information to differentiate the actions of one type of criminality from the other, but more importantly still, it gave the defendant the possibility of being informed of the charges attributed to him and for which he would be tried, in order for him to exercise his right to defense. The accused person, in exercise of his material defense, questioned before this Chamber that, based on the same facts and evidence, he was convicted of two types of criminality, which is incorrect. It is true that in the sections called \"*Facts against [Name 029] and [Name 026] and who were designated by [Name 001]*\" (cf. folios 375 to 409 of the judgment) and \"*Facts against [Name 029] and [Name 026]*\" (cf. folios 881 to 893 according to the judgment's own numbering) there is a partial coincidence in the probative and intellectual reasoning regarding the storage and safeguarding of money proceeds from drug trafficking, as well as the recruitment of third parties to carry out concealment actions of the illicit capital by [Name 029] and his romantic partner, in other sections of the judgment other actions carried out by the accused were addressed that place him as a drug transporter for the organization, as detailed under the headings \"*Case 18-000017-1219-PE. El Bueno Case*\" (cf. folios 409 to 455) and \"*Materialization. Aserrí Case 19-014179-0042-PE*\" (cf. folios 675 to 690 according to the judgment's own numbering). So that, although the appellant is partially correct that the first-instance ruling contains a certain argumentative reiteration in two different sections, this does not constitute an error that compromises its validity. On the contrary, the overall reasoning of the judgment allows identification, without any difficulty, of the foundations that support each of the criminal types charged —as will be seen below— so it is feasible to establish a logical and legal separation between the elements that constitute the crime of drug trafficking and those that correspond to money laundering. For better order in the analysis, what corresponds to each of the accredited functions in the debate stage that were carried out by the defendant will be addressed separately. A) Drug Transportation. The judgment establishes that [Name 029], alias \"[Name 083]\", is one of those in charge of making deliveries of illicit substances to third parties on behalf of [Name 001]. The *a quo* arrived at said conclusion based on the statement of the judicial investigators in charge of the inquiries, the police reports, the content of the telephone communications, and the certified copy of other related cases. Two specific cases, identified by the judicial police as \"El Bueno Case\" and \"Aserrí Case\", are those that allow the inference that [Name 029] was in charge of transporting drugs for delivery to other criminal organizations. The first of those cases was processed under unique number 18-0000171219-PE. Based on the prosecution's evidence, the trial court was able to establish that a parallel investigation was conducted into a criminal structure led by a subject identified as [Name 099], alias \"[Name 109]\", which was supplied with drugs by the criminal organization led by [Name 001], through [Name 029], alias \"[Name 083]\". According to the *a quo*, the person in charge of that activity on Costa Rican soil was identified as [Name 137] and the contact of [Name 029] with the organization was a woman identified as [Name 101], alias \"[Name 110]\", with whom \"[Name 083]\" carried out the illicit transactions around midnight, through the use of coded language to refer to the drug caches, with the terms \"*babys*\", \"*babies*\" (“*bebés*”) or \"*half babies*\" (“*medios bebés*”), among other terms. This Chamber considers that the weighing of the evidence carried out regarding this event and the intellectual reasoning set forth in the judgment is adequate and sufficient. The *a quo* took up the statement given at trial by the judicial investigators [Name 093], [Name 111] and [Name 092], who reported details about the investigation parallel to the present one and the way in which both preliminary investigations were linked. According to the witnesses, the telephone interceptions revealed the existing contact between [Name 029] and [Name 101], who was the person in charge, together with a subject named [Name 114], of receiving the drug for supply to the remaining members of the gang managed by [Name 137]. They detailed the use of coded language with terms such as \"*babies*\" or \"*half babies*\", to refer to the drug; furthermore, that the deliveries of the caches were made around midnight, by alias \"[Name 083]\", who used for those purposes a Mitsubishi brand vehicle, which according to the telephone interceptions was fitted with what is known in police terms as a \"*hidden compartment*\" (“*caleta*”), which is a compartment to hold the illicit material. In this way, between the days of December 28 and 29, 2018, after communications were detected between [Name 029] and \"[Name 051]\" indicating that a drug delivery would be made to him, the judicial police followed the former from the León XIII housing complex to the Tirrases sector, where he delivered what, according to the investigators, was drugs to a motorcyclist, a transaction that took place next to the residence of [Name 114].\n\nThe witnesses recounted that the police presence was detected by alias «[Name 083]», which is why he took evasive maneuvers that included traveling to the province of Alajuela. They added that on that occasion alias «[Name 083]» was accompanied by his wife [Name 026] and a minor. It is important to note that the judicial investigator [Name 111] detailed that in the wiretap (intervención telefónica) conducted in summary proceeding 18-0000171219-PE, [Name 137] told a third party that he received drugs from «[Name 084]», which constitutes an important indicator of the link between both criminal structures —As part of the comprehensive review of the judgment, it was verified that this information also appears in folios 811 and 812 of volume III of the certified copy of the referenced case file 18-000017-1219-PE, where sequence 3769942, from 10:55:06 a.m. on December 20, 2018, is recorded—. The investigators also detailed that in the intercepted communications they spoke of the price of the drug, in 5,100,000 colones, and even the instructions that «[Name 083]» gave to «[Name 116]» on how to arrange the bills that were delivered as payment. In addition, the judgment explains that the information provided by the judicial investigators is supported by the reports added to the case file and by the content of the wiretaps. Of particular interest, the trial court’s ruling also takes up a series of transcriptions of the wiretaps captured during the investigation stage. From sequence 0037100, generated on the tapped line [Value 064], at 00:48 hours on December 7, 2018, [Name 029] talks with his romantic partner [Name 026], to whom he says: “I told [Name 136] that the people already had the money, right, for the babies and that thing” and then adds that he responded: “that at the same time as always, I mean, at twelve” [sic] (cf. f. 426 of the judgment). From that communication, the a quo highlights that [Name 029] was acting on orders from [Name 001], who during the investigation was identified both with the alias of «[Name 084]». Regarding the relationship between «[Name 083]» and [Name 101], the judgment reconstructs it from police report IP-033-EN-19, in which, in turn, a record was made of the communications in which both people interact, the first from the tapped line [Value 077] and the second through right [Value 078]. The sequences correspond to numbers 0009941, from 17:39 hours on November 16, 2018; 0001690, from 17:58 hours on December 6, 2018; 0012936, from 17:03 hours on December 16, 2018; 0014025, from 15:47 hours on December 17, 2018; 0015974, from 19:56 hours on December 18, 2018; 0017350, from 21:49 hours on December 19, 2018; 0018290, from 17:13 hours on December 20, 2018; 0026874, from 14:23 hours on December 28, 2018; 0032871, from 20:51 hours on January 3, 2019; 0034054, from 13:29 hours on January 4, 2019; 0003764, from 12:08 hours on February 7, 2019; 0036944, from 19:07 hours on January 7, 2019; 0006930, from 18:41 hours on February 10, 2019. From those sequences the judgment notes that they speak of “babies,” “half,” “whole,” as a form of coded language to refer to the object that turned out to be drugs, which «[Name 083]» was going to deliver to the aforementioned woman. Also, that the transports were made near midnight and that they spoke of the way payments were made. In this regard, the a quo states: “As the investigators correctly analyzed, the coded language indeed signals that it involves drug dealing, the term babies or babys is always mentioned, as well as the issue of payment for them, for example the following call excerpt: ‘they come to you and leave the money, you count it and, female said—it’s better, [Name 083] said—and I come and pick it up and leave the babies there.../ ...female said—okay then I’ll count it very carefully with [Name 050] and later you come and count and everything the same, [Name 083] said—imagine if it ends up with all the bills perfectly arranged, all neat, female said—man, I promise I’ll leave all the bills how you like them, like this, the series to one side, like this, neat, [Name 083] said—and you put a little rubber band on them so they’re stacked right…’. It is evident that the person with telephone service [Value 078] (who turned out to be [Name 116] / [Name 101]) was the intermediary to receive the drug and, in turn, to have the money that she had to pay [Name 029] in exchange for it. It was clear then that [Name 029] and the user of telephone service [Value 078] (who turned out to be [Name 116] / [Name 101]) turned out to be direct targets of both investigations” (cf. f. 440 of the judgment). This Chamber also observes that in the communications the woman refers to the subject as «[Name 120]», an aspect requiring unavoidable corroboration to verify that, in effect, this is the alias of [Name 029]. From the communications transcribed in the trial court’s ruling, the relevant sequences that stand out are 0009941, with the following passage: “female said then I’ll count it very carefully with [Name 050] and later you come and count and everything the same, [Name 083] said—imagine if it ends up with all the bills perfectly arranged, all neat, female said—man, I promise I’ll leave all the bills how you like them, like this, the series to one side, like this, neat” (cf. f. 428 of the judgment).\n\nAlso sequence 0001690, in which it is stated: «[Nombre 083] said – it's just that right now [Nombre 019] is going to go bring you uhh like a million two hundred eighty-eight something like that, female said – oh ok that's fine for there to move it because honestly the man's neighborhood the man's is hot so to move it so that, for now when I arrive uhhh, female said – have the rest, [Nombre 083] said – uh no no no no, actually they already gave me a part, now actually what's missing is that, female said – Oh good good, [Nombre 083] said – yes so uhh I'll take the babys to them now then, female said – ok you just let me know» (cfr. f. 432). From sequence 0012936, the following stands out: «[Nombre 083] called female and said – well I was already talking to [Nombre 139], female said - and how did it go?, [Nombre 083] said – well he tells me that [Nombre 050] supposedly has to be around nearby I don't know what, that he's renting somewhere and I don't know how much, female said – aha, [Nombre 083] said – so it's that he's going to see or if not he wants to talk to you to see if you do the deal, like they come to you and leave you the money, you count it and, female said – it's better, [Nombre 083] said – and I go pick it up and leave the babies there» [sic] (cfr. f. 433 of the judgment).\n\nFinally, from sequence 0029513 it is evident that «[Name 083]» told [Name 051] about the detection of a police presence, in terms similar to those recounted by the investigators at trial: «[Name 083] said – the thing is that you wouldn't believe the scare the other time, femenina said – up there, [Name 083] said – yeah right, femenina said – why?, [Name 083] said – well I'm not going there, because the guy tells me they don't have a car to get the stuff out and I don't know what, and I'm going, just as I'm turning into the entrance like that starting to go up, a UIP one and a Pick-Up and two cars pull up on me, so before I get to the entrance of [Name 050]'s place I duck into an entrance before it and one follows me, one goes behind me, the thing is I take off through there ah, and one comes out from a side and I stay there frozen, femenina said – aha, [Name 083] said – the thing is I see everything's weird, so I go to [Name 050]'s place, and I call [Name 050] to tell the guy to come and get this stuff out because the thing's looking bad, femenina said – aha, [Name 083] said – so they arrive and call the little guy on the motorcycle and somewhere along the line they call him saying there are some Pick-Ups and a patrol car up there, that the Orga and I don't know what and that something happened up there and I don't know what, and the thing is that a little later we do the whole thing, I load the stuff, and when I leave, and as I'm leaving and there’s this hill there's a Yaris parked like that, femenina said – What do you mean from the Organismo?, [Name 083] said – aha, and as I start going up I start looking and the guy is like frozen like hiding in the seat ah, femenina said – yes, according to him, [Name 083] said – according to him nobody had seen him, so I spot him right away, and as I'm leaving like that for the main road, there's a Hilux car like that, a Mazda with its lights off and everything, and I start going down and the guy comes with his lights off, he comes with his lights off and then like he remembered and turned the lights on, and he came at me and tailed me on the freeway and everything, I pulled off and ducked in over there, listen I ended up in Coyol de Alajuela, and the guy is behind me, femenina said – for real, [Name 083] said – yeah, and the guy in his thing, I never tipped him off that the guy was behind me, femenina said – aha, [Name 083] said – the guy thought that, that I'm a good driver, they haven't tipped them off, in his thing, in his thing, I went over there to Coyol to an aunt of mine's and went, femenina said – and he stayed there?, [Name 083]\n\nsaid – and the guy over there, what the guy expected was for her to go straight to the hole, female said – according to him, [Nombre 083] said – according to him, in his thing, and then later over there on the road I went out again and beeped at him over there and damn, I went into el Coyol and turned around and the stupid son of a bitch kept going on the road, kept going on the road and over there I see him like he was going to stop, so I went into el Coyol and floored it, I came out over there at Dos Pinos and hauled ass home, female said – and the guy didn't catch him, [Nombre 083] said – no way he didn't catch him, there was no way he could turn around, female said – dude that's crazy, dude, [Nombre 083] said – the guy got to the toll, I mean, at the toll thing I turned off before the toll, and went up, I was going slow at the top part to see him, if he comes back here after me he's coming straight for me and the idiot keeps going straight and passes the toll booths and parks to wait for me according to him, to see me, huh, what he didn't know was that I had already hauled ass out of there and the guy couldn't, now he had to go almost to the bridge to make a U-turn and go against traffic, female said – dude, what a scare, see dude, [Nombre 083] said – and I was going to go alone, I was going to go alone, and the lady tells me, \"Where is he?\n\nAnd I don't know what, pull and I took her with my [Name 181] and everything, and she was left cured, well left cured, feminine said – no thank goodness if the police (paca) had stopped you or something, you going without anything now with the lady and the [Name 181] less rough, [Name 083] said – yes and names and you see how nervous it really made me, right, no, that already, feminine said – (mentions something that is not understood) one last one, you tell her remember that day, [Name 083] said – ah, feminine said – the last one, [Name 083] said – ah yes yes obviously, she doesn't want to go now this little shit-scared thing« [sic] (cf. fs. 441 to 442 of the judgment). From this last communication the judgment erroneously indicates that it was generated on December 28, 2018, when the truth is that it occurred on December 30, however, this circumstance does not diminish the analysis carried out, since it is concluded that the information derived from it was consistent with what was referred to in court by the officials of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), regarding the surveillance carried out on alias «[Name 083]» on December 28, 2018, while driving vehicle license plate [Value 068], from the Ciudadela León XIII to the Tirrases sector, where he handed over «the stuff» (la vara), which turned out to be drugs, to a subject identified as «[Name 050]». The judgment highlights that the information referred by the judicial investigators about the existence of summary 18-000017-1219-PE, was corroborated with the review of the certified copy of that summary, which was equally corroborated by this Chamber as part of the comprehensive review of the ruling: «From folio 684 in volume II of the Investigation File (Legajo de Investigación) is located Preliminary Report 076-EN-19, dated March 06, 2019, titled “Request for Detention, Raid, and Registration” (Solicitud de Detención, Allanamiento y Registro), subscribed effectively by the Narcotics Section of the Judicial Investigation Agency, this report gives an account of all the investigative actions, starting with the confidential information that was captured in document 360-EN-19, in the section on identification of the suspects to be detained in the raid request, [Name 137], [Name 138] alias “[Name 139]”, [Name 101], among others, are effectively indicated; in turn the report makes known that the criminal structure is led from Nicaragua by [Name 099] alias “[Name 109]” who was deprived of liberty in said country, also that in Costa Rica the organization was directed by [Name 137], regarding [Name 101] the report states that she was in charge of storing the drugs in San José, Desamparados, San Lorenzo. From folio 819, being in volume II of the investigation file, it is confirmed according to the raid request report that with respect to [Name 101] the telephone service she used was [Value 082], the same that was intercepted and that was reflected in the conversations with [Name 029] alias “[Name 083]”, without forgetting that another of those intercepted was ([Name 137]), circumstances that give probative solidity to the relationship that existed between both organizations and that has been developing, that is, it is accredited that both organizations were functioning in parallel in the same temporal space, where the one directed by [Name 001] supplied drugs to the one directed by [Name 099] through his collaborators in Costa Rica [...] It is thus seen that the functioning of said criminal organization is established at least from June 1, 2017 and that the raids were executed on April 03, 2019, a temporal space that equally encompasses the functioning of the criminal organization judged here and it is also highlighted in the main fact that the leader of the organization that was intended to be raided was [Name 099], also that among the members of the structure was [Name 137] and [Name 101], thus confirming everything related by the investigators who were in charge of both that investigation and that of the criminal structure judged here. The jurisdictional raid order is found from folio 1253 to 1351 of volume III of the investigation file.\n\nThe results of the raids carried out on April 3, 2019 were recorded in police report CI-013-EN-19, which appears starting at folio 1604 in volume IV of the investigation file. It details that 23 people were arrested, among them [Nombre 137], and that among the evidence located, the following were seized, among other items: 12.28 grams of Cannabis Sativa clippings, a plastic wrapper containing 0.30 grams of powdered solid Ketamine, a plastic wrapper containing 0.48 grams of Ketamine, a transparent plastic wrapper containing 1.23 grams of powdered solid Ketamine, a plastic wrapper containing 0.11 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride, and 1437 plastic wrappers, of which at least 1078 contained an estimated net mass of 79.8 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride fragments, drugs that were intended for illicit commercialization at drug sales points controlled by the organization. Thus, having analyzed all the evidentiary elements that are related, the facts are held to be accredited to a degree of certainty» [sic] (cf. fs. 452 to 455). Despite the fact that the defendant was not intercepted while transporting the drugs for delivery to the criminal organization investigated in summary case n.° 18-000017-1219-PE and that the seizure of illicit substances, among these a significant quantity of cocaine doses —as part of the comprehensive review of the judgment, it is verified that the seizure was carried out in a structure identified as «the kitchen», which was the drug dealing site of that criminal organization— was carried out later in the raids executed with jurisdictional authorization, the truth is that, when these pieces of evidence are analyzed in conjunction with those of the case identified as «Aserrí», which will be referred to below, it is feasible to maintain that, indeed, the accused [Nombre 029] fulfilled the role of transporting drugs as a member of the criminal organization, in the vehicle with license plate [Valor 068], for delivery to other structures. For this reason, the conclusion of the lower court (a quo), which accredited the criminal participation of the defendant, in the terms set forth in the accusation, is correct. Now, under the title «Materialization of the Aserrí Case 19014179-0042-PE» (cf. fs. 675 to 690 of the judgment), the trial court set forth the intellectual reasoning through which it determined that a second criminal organization was supplied with drugs by the structure led by alias «[Nombre 084]» and that the person responsible for the transport and deliveries was [Nombre 029]. At this point, once again, the lower court's judgment takes up the testimony of officers [Nombre 092], [Nombre 093], and [Nombre 141], who, in similar terms, stated that the wiretapping yielded indicative information that [Nombre 029], alias «[Nombre 083]», made drug deliveries at very late hours of the night or early morning to other organizations, which led to stationary surveillance and tailing being conducted as an investigative strategy to learn his movements, since that mode of operation was detected in the aforementioned summary case 18-000017-1219-PE. Thus, at the beginning of May 2019, these verification tasks began. On two occasions, alias «[Nombre 083]» was observed leaving Alameda 1 of the Ciudadela León XIII aboard the Mitsubishi brand vehicle, license plates [Valor 068], and heading to the Aserrí sector, to a house located on the west side of the cemetery, where he was seen entering carrying bags —a pattern similar to that observed by the judicial police on December 28, 2018, not only regarding the departure site but also in the use of the same vehicle and the time the activity took place—. It was also observed that third parties would come to the site, to whom an object was delivered, and then they would leave the place. The movements observed, in the opinion of the investigators, were typical of drug transactions. With that information, it was decided to continue with the surveillance and tailing until achieving what is police-wise called a «materialization», that is, a drug seizure, which materialized between May 16 and 17, 2019. Thus, on May 16 in the early morning hours, alias «[Nombre 083]» was once again followed from Alameda 1 of the Ciudadela León XIII to the house of interest in the Aserrí sector, which he entered carrying bags and left a short time later. From that place, a woman left for a nearby store where she acquired some supplies, including bicarbonate, which, according to experience rules, is usually used in the preparation of crack, an action that alerted the investigators and motivated them to maintain surveillance. During the evening hours, they observed the arrival of a Toyota brand, Rav4 style vehicle, from which a subject descended, entered the property, and shortly after left carrying a bag, then left the site. Based on the analysis of the pattern observed by the judicial investigators and which, according to their experience, was typical of drug trafficking, the vehicle was intercepted. Traveling in it were a subject, a woman, and two minors. Inside was located a significant quantity of drug doses that the companion was carrying in his lap, which up to that moment appeared to be crack and which was later confirmed through the corresponding expert report. Based on that seizure and the valid presumption that drugs could be located inside the property, the respective search warrant was requested, which was authorized and executed on May 17, 2019. After entering the property, it was determined that it was not an inhabited place because it lacked household furnishings such as beds or appliances for food preparation. Instead, a safe, already prepared and dosed drugs, pieces of cocaine base crack, packages with cocaine, and cash in low-denomination currency were found. In addition, equipment for drug preparation was located, such as a stove and a gas cylinder. All this information, which derives from the lower court's judgment and was provided by the investigators, as the lower court (a quo) points out, finds support in the police reports of criminal case 19-014179-0042-PE, which correspond to those identified with numbers IP-156-EN-19 and CI-019-EN-19 (cf. ff. 1 to 22 and 80 to 112 of that summary's investigation file). Also, in report IP-227-EN-19, prepared for this summary case (cf. fs. 551 to 557 of the investigation file). Importantly, it is noteworthy that, based on the information derived from those documents, some data were clarified, such as the quantity of drugs seized from the occupants of the Rav4 vehicle, which consisted of 2521 wrappers with cocaine fragments, as well as 2 additional wrappers with 200.27 grams of cocaine. Regarding the findings from the raid, attention is drawn to the location of a black and silver digital scale, plastic wrappers, sodium bicarbonate, and small blades, which, according to experience rules, are used for the preparation of drug doses. Also, 50 plastic wrappers with cocaine fragments, 1 bag with residues of cocaine fragments, 2 wrappers with a total of 2004.16 grams of cocaine, and ₡1,480,075. The judgment emphasizes that in that parallel case, the Public Ministry filed an accusation and request for the opening of trial against the persons identified as [Nombre 102], [Nombre 107], [Nombre 104], and [Nombre 105], the first three linked to the house and the last one who removed the doses from the place and then transported them in the Toyota Rav4 vehicle. From the review that this Chamber conducted of the certified copy of case file 19-014179-0042-PE, it was possible to compare the information referenced in the judgment. It was observed that report IP-156-EN-19 consists of a request for a search that used as its basis the result of the surveillance conducted at the house and the seizure of the drugs that [Nombre 105] was transporting in the vehicle with license plates [Valor 083] (cf. fs. 1 to 22 of the investigation file). Also taken into consideration was seizure record 0008434 detailing the seizure of the drugs from [Nombre 105] (cf. f. 25 of the investigation file). The search warrant issued by the Juzgado Penal de Turno Extraordinario del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José at 06:48 hours on May 17, 2019 (cf. fs. 45 to 55 of the investigation file), accompanied by the notification and raid records (cf. fs. 58 to 60 of the investigation file), the judicial police evidence report CI-019-EN-19 (cf. fs. 80 to 112 of the investigation file), signed, among others, by [Nombre 093], who was one of the trial witnesses, and the expert opinion DCF: 201902659-QUI, according to which of the 2521 wrappers seized from [Nombre 105], at least 1891 contained an estimated net mass of 161 grams of cocaine. The fragments seized from that same subject contained 200.27 grams of powdered cocaine solid. Of the drugs seized inside the house, the two packages contained 2004.16 grams of compact cocaine solid, and the dosed drug contained cocaine fragments (cf. fs. 184 to 187 of the investigation file). From this entire account, this Chamber agrees that it is possible to determine that the seized drugs were supplied by the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001] and that the person directly responsible for the transport was [Nombre 029], alias «[Nombre 083]», by delegation of the former. Precisely, due to the coincidence in the pattern observed in the two parallel summary cases referred to, this Chamber agrees with the lower court (a quo) that it is possible to determine that, on the occasions when the judicial police conducted surveillance and tailing of [Nombre 029], he was carrying out the transport and supply of drugs to third parties using the Mitsubishi brand, Montero style vehicle, circulation plate [Valor 075], which accredits his criminal participation, as a co-author, in the crime of drug trafficking, as set forth in facts 4.1, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36, and 4.37.\n\nB) Custody, administration, and conversion into foreign currency of the money derived from drug trafficking. As a starting point, it is relevant to point out that this tribunal assumes the position according to which the perpetrator of the predicate offense may also be the perpetrator of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), when they carry out any of the conduct typified in numeral 69 of Ley N.° 8204, as occurs in this matter. This position, which validates as an independent illicit act the action of enjoying, concealing, transferring, or transforming the earnings from illicit activity, has been upheld by the Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia in various rulings; however, ruling n.° 2022-00716, from 10:56 hours on June 29, 2022, is highlighted, because it was the one adopted by the trial court on this issue. The ruling, as relevant, states: «In another order of ideas, it is also unavoidable to address the topic of self-laundering (auto lavado), as established in numeral 69 of the cited law. According to the wording of this article transcribed above, a double intent (dolo) is required; that is, knowledge and acceptance that the assets to be legitimized come from a serious crime (punishable with penalties that have a threshold of at least four years of imprisonment) and the knowledge and will to carry out the actions provided for in subsections a) and b) of ordinal 69 of the mentioned law, namely: “Article 69.- Shall be sanctioned with a prison term of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts, or transmits assets of economic interest, knowing that these originate from a crime that, within its range of penalties, can be sanctioned with a prison term of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to hide or conceal the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the offenses to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever hides or conceals the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement, or rights over the assets or the property thereof, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its range of penalties can be sanctioned with a prison term of four (4) years or more. (…)” (the underlining does not belong to the original). That knowledge and acceptance of the prior crime does not exclude that they acquired it by virtue of their own participation in the prior illicit act. Such limitation, exception, or prohibition is not described in the referred ordinal and, for this reason, nothing prevents the perpetrator of the predicate offense from also being the perpetrator of the crime that sanctions money laundering. These are distinct punitive conducts, diverse protected legal interests (bienes jurídicos), just as the intent required in the prior criminality is also different from that in asset laundering. The latter, in turn, is a common crime that can be committed by any active subject without them meeting special characteristics of authorship.[...] In this order of ideas, it is the criterion of this Cámara de Casación Penal that the criminal type prescribed in Law number 8204 does not contain any exception or limitation that prevents sanctioning the crime of asset laundering for the perpetrator of the predicate offense, since it is a common crime, which protects different legal interests, with illicit conducts not subsumable into each other, and where the law itself makes no reservation or exception». The criterion set forth, as already indicated, is endorsed by this Chamber, which is why it is estimated that the conclusions of the lower court (a quo) on the matter, set forth at the beginning of the section «Intellectual reasoning on the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales)» (cf. fs. 791 to 794 of the judgment) are correct. This topic of the judgment was not questioned by the technical or material defense; however, for greater clarity of the pronouncement, it was deemed pertinent to clarify it prior to what will be indicated below. By virtue of the fact that the judgment analyzes in a single section the legal situation of [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], the intellectual reasoning involving both defendants will likewise be addressed in this section, regarding the handling of money derived from drug trafficking. Having analyzed the judgment, this Chamber considers that the intellectual reasoning expressed by the lower court (a quo) to hold facts 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 5 as proven is adequate, sufficient, and correct.\n\nRegarding the safeguarding of money in the defendants' home, the judgment argued the following: \"Having more than clear the operational dynamics in a given timeframe, where it was also determined that [Name 029] and [Name 026], who were a couple, performed functions assigned by [Name 001] regarding the accounting and administration of money proceeds from drug trafficking (tráfico de Drogas), given that on December 6, 2018, they maintained under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the home located at [...], an amount of approximately 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. To have the preceding event as proven, the prosecutorial entity offered as a witness the judicial investigator [Name 142], who in relevant part testified: 'I work in the Narcotics Section (Sección de Estupefacientes), I have received training for drug trafficking, it was given by training colleagues through the basic police course, I know because […].. my duties in the investigation were in the office: report preparation, inquiries, analysis of synopses of what the criminal judge sent, report preparation, synopses I remember conversations between [Name 026] and [Name 029] alias [Name 083], they talked about amounts of 4 million, 9 million, [Name 083] asked [Name 026] how much money was saved'; the investigator's statement is in effect documented in the call with sequence 0001622, the transcription of which indicates: 'From [Value 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0001622. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the telephone service user [Value 084]. This call was made at 16:34 hours on December 6, 2018. [Name 083] called a female and said – hey love, you, you have to count that money well because supposedly there, um, there should be in total with what I have here which is four million and with what you have there it should be seven million nine hundred ninety-three thousand, female said – and how much is there?, [Name 083] said – there is, there is seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand, the two hundred eighty-nine that you have there, how much is it two million, three million?, female said – mm-hmm, [Name 083] said – two million two hundred, female said – mm-hmm hey we have to count that again, female said – mm-hmm, I'm going to make a fresh one and I'll review it right now; they say goodbye. Communication ends.' (call from volume I of the transcription dossier, also see folio 82 report IP-033-EN-19, the highlighting is ours). It was also considered accredited that as part of the functions performed by the defendants [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of money proceeds from drug trafficking (tráfico de Drogas), on December 21, 2018, they maintained under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the home located at [...], an amount of approximately 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system, to accredit the fact there is the telephone call with sequence 0013990, the transcription of which states: 'From [Value 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0013990. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the telephone service user [Value 084]. This call was made at 21:12 hours on December 21, 2018.\n\n[Nombre 083] called feminine and feminine said – love then in the bag that guy didn't give now, feminine said – there are two million fifty thousand, [Nombre 083] said – two million fifty thousand, sure sure?, not two million one hundred?, feminine said – no, fifty, [Nombre 083] said – sure?, feminine said – yes my love I already reviewed it again and all for the same because I didn't know it was two hundred but I'm counting, [Nombre 083] said – well then I'm going to tell the guy, feminine said – and in this other bag there were two million five hundred fifty, [Nombre 083] said – uh-huh, feminine said – see, [Nombre 083] said – then there are four six hundred, feminine said – uh-huh, [Nombre 083] said – well then I'm going to tell the guy, love that's fine; they say goodbye. Communication ends”. (call from volume I of the transcription file, also see folio 82 and 83 of report IP-033-EN-19, highlighting is ours). Continuing with the same line of argument, it was proven that as part of the functions performed by the defendants [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029], regarding the accounting and administration of money derived from drug trafficking, on December 31, 2018, they kept in their custody, disposal, and storage, at the dwelling located in [...], an amount of approximately 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred and ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. The foregoing event is proven based on the call with sequence 0029642, which was transcribed as follows: “From [Valor 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0029642.\n\nThe tapped phone line maintains communication with the user of the tapped phone service [Value 084]. This call was made at 00:31 hours on the day of December 31, 2018. [Name 083] called the female and said – tell me my love, [Name 083] said – my love, I need you to take out five hundred for me, which I think are already in a bag, female said – uh-huh, [Name 083] said – and from the other thing I need you to take out four three ninety for me, four three ninety, I need you to take out like, four three, it only has four million three hundred ninety, female said – ujumm, [Name 083] said – and it's five million three hundred eighty thousand that they have to give, female said – ujumm, [Name 083] said – so then well you have to make up the five hundred, if it has four million three hundred ninety, female said – ah ok to four three ninety, [Name 083] said – you have to add the rest, female said – five hundred minus four three ninety, [Name 083] said – uh-huh, female said – seven ten you have to take out, [Name 083] said – ah well you add them, if you can add them from the money they gave me from the eight hundred, how is it, there is eight hundred and three eighty something like that, female said – three twenty, [Name 083] said – eh three twenty, female said – I'll take them from there, [Name 083] said – yes take them from there, female said – the seven ten I'll take from the eight hundred and from the three twenty that are saved, [Name 083] said – uh-huh the eight hundred and the three, female said – uh-huh, let's say there is about one hundred twenty, [Name 083]\n\n– exactly, female – I take out the seven hundred and ten from there, [Name 083] said – aha, female – okay my love, [Name 083] said – put them aside for me so I can arrive and count everything properly, they say goodbye.\n\nThe conversation ends\" (call from Volume II of the transcription file, also see folio 84 report IP-033-EN-19, highlighting is ours)» [sic] (cf. fs. 394 to 397 of the judgment). As can be seen from the preceding passage, the accreditation of these actions derives mainly from the content of the wiretaps, an exercise that is legally valid. This is because the probative value of the information obtained from the interception of communications depends on multiple factors, including the specific content of the captured conversation, the language used by the interlocutors, and the context in which the communication takes place. In this case, the conversations between [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] recorded in the judgment allude, clearly and directly, to the existence of sums of money in their custody. These are unequivocal expressions, devoid of ambiguity, whose meaning can be extracted without the need for interpretations or external corroborating sources. The meaning of the conversation is fully understandable from merely listening to it, which reinforces its probative value in proving the acts attributed to the accused. Added to the above are the actions aimed at exchanging currency with that money, as detailed in fact 4.5, for which [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] enlisted the help of third parties. On this matter, the judgment states: \"Subsequent to the 3 previously analyzed events, it has been proven that as part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, in the period from January 2019 until October 2020, the accused **[Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029],** were in charge of the recruitment function of third persons, who were responsible for making deposits of money from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as performing the functions of currency exchange and purchase, this with the purpose of incorporating the money from drug trafficking into the national banking system. To prove this circumstance and given the time frame, the following calls, which have their respective transcriptions, were reproduced in the hearing: *From [Valor 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0010354. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Valor 084]. This call was made at 11:12 hours on 12 April 2019. \"[Nombre 026] called [Nombre 083], from minute 00:00:27 to minute 00:00:38 the following was extracted: [Nombre 083] said – I am going to go to Tibás, [Nombre 026] said – ujumm, [Nombre 083] said – to make a deposit and to change a million (he mentioned something that was not understood), [Nombre 026] said - what for?, [Nombre 083] said – and to change some money, [Nombre 026] said – ah okay fine. from minute 00:00:53 to minute 00:01:04 the following was extracted: [Nombre 083] said – I am going to do that to see if I can get out of that thing, pay that, go change that money to give it to that guy\". The conversation ended. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0010421. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 12:03 hours on 12 April 2019.*\n\n[Nombre 083] called Subject, Subject said – hello, [Nombre 083] said - Where are you?, Subject said – ah, [Nombre 083] said - Where are you?, Subject said – man, I'm going to the nacional, you see, there are no dollars here, [Nombre 083] said - the nacional where?, Subject said – the one here in Tibás, [Nombre 083] said – (mentioned something that was not understood), Subject said – it's just that here they only exchanged six hundred, [Nombre 083] said – which one, at the BC? Which one are you at?, Subject said – at the Bac, [Nombre 083] said – well then, go up to the BCR, man, or go up to the Lincoln, Subject said – to the Lincoln, [Nombre 083] said – yeah man, because honestly this shit is packed everywhere, it's fucking full of people, I was around there, Subject said – well, I'm going to check out the BCR to see how much they'll exchange for me, because what's missing is like four hundred thousand, it's not much, [Nombre 083] said – yeah, yeah, they'll exchange it for you there, Subject said – I'm going to check it out so I don't have to go all the way over there then, [Nombre 083]\n\n– well, Subject said – you where are you headed, going to Lincoln?, [Name 083] said – no no I already changed, asshole, I changed at the BRC, Subject said – well well, [Name 083] said – I have to go make a deposit there at the Nacional man you dummy if you could see how it is, Subject said – well well, [Name 083] said – well”.\n\n*The conversation ended.* *From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0039634. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 11:28 hours on 10 de mayo de 2019.* “[Nombre 083] spoke with a subject, [Nombre 083] said - where are you, you dumbass?, subject said – hello, [Nombre 083] said - where are you?, subject said - huh?, [Nombre 083] said – where are you?, subject said – man, here in Barrio México, [Nombre 083] said – haaaa, subject said - why?, [Nombre 083] said – well nothing, that we have to go change a little plate there, subject said – well man, I'm on my way over, [Nombre 083] said - how soon will you get here?, subject said – well, [Nombre 083] said - huh?, subject said - twenty minutes?, man, he said – okay, go ahead go ahead, subject said – it's just that I'm with [Nombre 143] and well I have to take it easy, if not I'd be there in two minutes, [Nombre 083] said – it's fine, it's fine, subject said – look, [Nombre 083] said – hey, subject said - and do you need another one?, [Nombre 083] said – mmm, man well no, no because it's just a little bit, subject said – so you can take [Nombre 144], [Nombre 083] said – oh yeah yeah yeah, for anything yeah yeah but not right now; they say goodbye”. Communication ends. *From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0045996. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 084]. This call was made at 12:34 hours on 16 de mayo de 2019.* “[Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 026], [Nombre 026] said – love, [Nombre 083] said – hey, [Nombre 026] said – [Nombre 074] is here, [Nombre 083] said – yes, get the one from the other bag, [Nombre 026] said - should he go to San José with us?, [Nombre 083] said – well yes but well, have him go to a different bank because, well, are the three of you going to the same place?, [Nombre 026] said – yes, that's fine, [Nombre 083] said – okay”. Communication ends. *From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0046048. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 13:21 hours on 16 de mayo de 2019.*\n\n[Name 083] spoke with subject, subject said – man, I already have this here what about the other thing?, [Name 083] said – I'm on my way down now, head to my place, subject said - which way are you coming?, [Name 083] said – I'm leaving here from Tibás heading down, subject said – oh okay better when you're at the house call me so I don't go there with this shit and find no one, subject said – okay, [Name 083] said – ok. Communication ends. From [Value 077]. Call identified with the sequence number 0046092. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 13:57 hours on the day of May 16, 2019. \"[Name 123] spoke with [Name 083], [Name 123] said – man, [Name 083] said – hey, [Name 123] said – is that guy going to come then?, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 123] said – well yeah, to get that thing out then, if you want let's head out right now, [Name 083] said – yes, to change what's left, [Name 123] said - is almost everything ready?, [Name 083] said – just one left now, [Name 123] said – oh good good good, then I'll be on the corner; they say goodbye. Communication ends. From [Value 077]. Call identified with the sequence number 0046235. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service 88340857. This call was made at 16:15 hours on the day of May 16, 2019. \"[Name 083] spoke with [Name 026], [Name 026] said – love, [Name 083] said – tell me, [Name 026] said – well no, just if you were writing me something, you see my phone turned off, [Name 083] said – no no, [Name 026] said – haa where are you?, [Name 083] said – right here in Tibás, [Name 026] said – haaa are you doing that?, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 026] said – haaa, you know, [Name 083] said. And there was a fake five thousand bill, [Name 026] said – mine too, you should have seen what a hassle, [Name 083] said – damn fool, [Name 026] said – in mine too and they made me fill out a form there and, [Name 083] said – me too, [Name 026] said – aha, [Name 083] said – yes me too, [Name 026] said – yes and they confiscated it and I tell him as long as you don't call the police, he says no no nothing else the bill just gets confiscated, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 026] said - are you coming home right now?, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 026] said – oh okay I'm heading there, [Name 083] said – no no, from here we're going to Lincoln, [Name 026] said – ah still not done?, [Name 083] said – yes still a little bit left, that of [Name 151], [Name 026] said – oh okay that's fine then; they say goodbye. Communication ends. From [Value 077].\n\nCall identified with the sequence number 0046263. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 085]. This call was made at 16:41 hours on the day of May 16, 2019. \"[Name 083] spoke with subject, [Name 083] said – man I'm here in front of the welfare queen's, subject said – uhum, [Name 083] said - are you going to be long?, subject said – man they have to open the this activate that account, otherwise they only change a thousand dollars, [Name 083] said – mmm, but is she already opening it?, subject said – yes, but she says that takes a while, [Name 083] said - and the other guys'?, subject said – well there they are, [Name 083] said - the same?, subject said – I don't know, [Name 083] said – okay, subject said – but I don't know about them; they say goodbye\". Communication ends. From [Value 077]. Call identified with the sequence number 0051493. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 087]. This call was made at 04:21 hours on the day of May 22, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 022] alias [Nombre 123] spoke with [Nombre 083], from minute 00:00:37 to minute 00:00:57 the following was discussed: [Nombre 123] said – I'm getting up at seven right now to give something to [Nombre 016] because he has to go drop them off at (mentioned something unintelligible), [Nombre 083] said – what what, [Nombre 123] said – that right now, oh okay when you go pick up the food I'll head out with you to see if I can stop by the bank for a bit, [Nombre 083] said – like at seven man it's crazy, [Nombre 123] said – well yes to go to the bank, asshole. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0056119. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 16:46 hours on the day of 27 May 2019. \"[Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with a male subject, male subject said – man, [Nombre 083] said - what?, male subject said - where are you?, [Nombre 083] said – man here in, I was going by Buen Pa, male subject said – man don't you see they won't change it for me at the National, [Nombre 083] said - uh-huh and what?, male subject said – and at BCR they already closed, [Nombre 083] said – well then go to the to the bank of I don't know what there at the\n\nLincoln man, male subject said – ok, [Nombre 083] said – ok\". Communication ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0058788. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 088]. This call was made at 04:35 hours on the day of 31 May 2019. \"[Nombre 007] alias \"[Nombre 109]\" spoke with a male subject identified as [Nombre 083], [Nombre 109] said – man come over so I can give you some money that that guy said I should give to you, [Nombre 083] said – well I know, motherfucker, I'm just going by AyA right now man, step out to the corner, [Nombre 109] said – I'm here, [Nombre 083] said – ok\". Communication ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0062004. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 085]. This call was made at 10:44 hours on the day of 04 June 2019. \"[Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with a male subject, [Nombre 083] said – man we have to go there to change, can you?, male subject said - huh?, [Nombre 083] said – we have to go change, can you?, male subject said - where are you?, [Nombre 083] said – well here, come to the house and pick up, male subject said – ok, [Nombre 083] said – but you have to find a way to go man because I have to go too, male subject said – well I'll see then, I'll let you know, [Nombre 083] said – well ok the stuff is here, male subject said – well ok\". Communication ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0062186. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 084]. This call was made at 15:10 hours on the day of 04 June 2019. \"[Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with [Nombre 026], [Nombre 026] said – love, [Nombre 083] said – tell me, [Nombre 026] said - hasn't [Nombre 151] arrived from La Uruca? It's stopped raining now, [Nombre 083] said – I'll call him to see what's up because he told me he tells me, he put me on hold with \"I'm on my way\", [Nombre 026] said – tell him to hurry up because well I have to go do that thing too, [Nombre 083] said – okay, I'm going love, [Nombre 026] said – ok\". Communication ends. From [Valor 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0063280. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 089]. This call was made at 10:34 hours on the day of 06 June 2019. \"([Nombre 029]) alias [Nombre 083] spoke with a Female.\n\nFemale said— Hello, [Name 083] said— hello, look, Female said— what's up, [Name 083] said— you can go change that thing, Female said— yes, at what time?, [Name 083] said— well, I don't know, right now if you want I'll let you know so you can be on the highway so I can give you the money, Female said— ah ok ok that's fine and I can go at any time during the day, [Name 083] said— the thing is I need it early, I mean fast, Female said— ah ok ok, that's fine, they say goodbye.” The conversation ended. From [Value 090]. Call identified with sequence number 0200128. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service not reflected. This call was made at 10:26 a.m. on May 27, 2019. “Female spoke with [Name 026], female said— [Name 026], hey look, well they tell me they can only change five hundred dollars for me, so what do I do?, [Name 026] said— noo, you have to go to San José, female said— haaa okay, no no, so you take it and you change it, like that, is that okay?, [Name 026] said— y yes; they say goodbye.” End of communication» [sic] (cfr. pp. 400 to 406 according to the judgment's own numbering). It is important to note that, even though the a quo considered it established that the defendants used third parties to make cash deposits into the accounts of the remaining members of the criminal group, this circumstance is not actually derived from the intellectual foundation set forth in the judgment. Note that, in the calls transcribed in the previous passage, the only times cash deposits are mentioned, it is [Name 029] who states that he must make them. In addition to the above, no reference is made that the beneficiaries of those actions are the other accused. Despite the above, the other conduct attributed to ([Name 004]) and [Name 026], related to the handling of money derived from drug trafficking and the actions aimed at its conversion into foreign currency, do emerge from the evidence assessed in the judgment. Again, the use of clear and express language is observed in the records where the defendants talk about currency exchange, as part of the actions to conceal and convert the illicit capital. The communications reveal an established method that involved the use of third parties for those purposes, the exchange of specific amounts, knowledge of banking institution hours, and a reiteration of those actions over time. Importantly, this Chamber observes that in sequence 0010354 [Name 029] expressly tells [Name 026] that he must change money to give it to “ese mae”. On many occasions, the individuals under investigation referred to [Name 001] precisely in that way, as a means of concealing his identity, but which all members of the organization understood. One of those occasions where the reference was clear and evident was when the momentary apprehension of [Name 001] by the Public Force occurred, as can be seen from sequence 0323442, at 9:00 p.m. on December 3, 2018, in which [Name 010] identifies him in that manner. The evidence reveals, then, that [Name 001] was one of the direct recipients of the money, which is logical given his leadership position, as well as the high-value assets with which he was linked during the investigation stage and subsequently proven at trial. It is important to highlight that even [Name 026] referred to [Name 001] as “el patrón” in sequence 0014218 when speaking with a third party, as established by the a quo. Another aspect that this Court also verifies is that, in at least two communications, it is observed that [Name 029] agreed with [Name 022], alias “[Name 123]”, to meet to carry out the currency exchange. This fact is of particular importance because during the search conducted at this latter individual's residence, a total of $10,000 in cash was seized, which undoubtedly reinforces not only the connection between the individuals but also the connection of the seized money to the illicit activity of drug trafficking. Also, a receipt with the number 14105387 was found, for the purchase of foreign currency, specifically $600, which coincides with the indicated dynamic. Regarding this latter point, the lower court first established the offense of trafficking, in which [Name 029] acted as a drug courier under instructions from [Name 001], from which the origin of the money clearly emerges, because he was the one who directly received the payments upon delivering the illicit substances.\n\nIn this regard, the judgment states: «Analyzing the foregoing calls jointly and taking into account the facts proven against [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], both delegates designated as such by the leader [Nombre 001], and which occurred on the days of December 6, December 21, and December 31, all in the year 2018, the criminal actions allow for a global understanding of the criminal phenomenon of drug trafficking in its modalities at the national level (street-level dealing, micro-trafficking), from which experience has taught us about the complexity and totality of the scope of this illicit act, being that one of the pillars in the continuous operation of these criminal groups and therefore their utmost motivation derives from the purchasing power and immense monetary gains that have their genesis in the trafficking of prohibited substances, gains which, having their origin in a punishable act, they must attempt to legitimize and introduce into our national economic and financial system, reflecting the preceding communications a clear example of this assertion, evidencing the distinct tasks carried out by [Nombre 029] alias [Nombre 083] using their telephone number [Valor 077] and in the case of [Nombre 026] using the telephone service [Valor 090], both telephone services duly accredited to each of them as analyzed [sic] in the three prior events; thus, the roles of both in the recruitment of persons to make bank deposits, currency exchange and/or purchases are clearly understood, the female being tasked on various occasions with finding persons or \"front persons\" whose sole purpose is to make bank deposits of high amounts of money in a fragmented manner and thereby avoid any alert issued by any banking entity and thus avoid any trace of banking activity, which is why it is more than demonstrated that they carried out actions to convert, transfer assets of economic interest, as well as conceal the true nature, the origin, knowing that the money stored by them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused **[Nombre 001],** being among the recruited persons that of the user of telephone right [Valor 198] and who, as a result of the wiretaps conducted by the criminal judge as well as the investigation proceedings, was accredited to [Nombre 151], identification document [Valor 092], who is one of the persons tasked with making deposits or purchasing currency, likewise, the amounts of money that would be under the control and enjoyment of the criminal structure led by [Nombre 001] were reflected, who additionally in the communication under sequence 0058788 alias [Nombre 109] indicated \"[Nombre 109] *said* – mae come over to give you some money that *said* guy told me to give to you, [Nombre 083] *said* – well I know motherfucker, I'm barely going by AyA mae...\" again exposing how by referring to \"THAT GUY\" it was used to point to alias [Nombre 084], who additionally according to the communication would be sending an amount of money to alias [Nombre 083] through alias [Nombre 109], noting again the caution on the part of alias [Nombre 084] in delivering the money and using a third party for it and thus avoiding any possible sign before any police work» [sic] (cfr. pp. 406 to 407 according to the judgment's own numbering). With the exception already indicated regarding the deposits of money into the bank accounts of the accused, the remaining assessments made by the trial court are correct, since the evidence, in effect, reflects a clear and evident connection between the crime of drug trafficking and the money that, through [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], was entered into the national banking system through currency exchange for its subsequent use in the acquisition of high-value assets by the criminal structure. Regarding the origin of the money and the knowledge the accused had of that circumstance, the judgment indicates: «Finally, and by way of closing, it has been clearly demonstrated that [Nombre 029] was the person designated by [Nombre 001] for the delivery of the drug stashes that were being sold at that time, since in a telephone call [Nombre 029] makes reference to [Nombre 026] that they *said* to the \"[Nombre 136]\" that the people already had the money for the babies, which evidently means that the drug was not given away, but rather that money was received in exchange for it, a circumstance that in turn allows the inference that Mr. [Nombre 001] also delegated the administration and custody of said money to [Nombre 029] and their domestic partner [Nombre 026], custody and administration that was carried out from the home of both, one must not forget the constant calls between them, referring to the counting of the monies from the babies or half-babies, to specific amounts and additionally as part of the administration of the same they recruited persons to make bank deposits and currency exchange, without forgetting that regarding [Nombre 026] in the call with sequence 0014218, [Nombre 026] tells [Nombre 152]: \"come by where the boss is\", and [Nombre 152] says: \"where [Nombre 153]?, [Nombre 026] nods, in turn tells them it is to give them some money. We see then how for [Nombre 026] the figure of alias \"[Nombre 153]\" is in reference to the boss which is the same as saying chief, undoubtedly referring to alias \"[Nombre 084]\" who is clearly [Nombre 001], which is why it is completely understandable that [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] acted in compliance with the functions that were assigned and delegated clearly by [Nombre 001]» [sic] (cfr. pp. 890 to 891 of the judgment). As already indicated, the term «babies» was one of the forms of coded language with which the investigated referred to the drug. By alias «[Nombre 083]» telling their wife that they spoke with «[Nombre 136]» —which is one of the aliases of [Nombre 001]— regarding the fact that the people had the money for the babies, it can be inferred that the woman had knowledge that the money came from the payment for the drug trafficked by her husband. In any case, this Chamber highlights that, in the transport of drugs carried out by [Nombre 029] on December 28, 2018, he was accompanied by [Nombre 026], which was extracted not only from the statement of the judicial investigators, but from sequence 0029513, 20:51 hours on December 30, 2018, partially transcribed in prior lines (cfr. pp. 440 to 441 of the judgment). Added to the above, as another aspect considered by the *a quo*, is that [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] did not have records of lawful work activities that would justify managing large amounts of money. In that sense, the first-instance ruling highlights: «It is more than clear that the money that [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] inserted into the financial system was the product of drug trafficking given the direct relationship between the drug deliveries made by ([Nombre 004]) and the receipt and administration of the monies that the calls between both reflected, beyond that according to what was declared by the judicial officers of Legitimación de Capitales and as was set out in the reports rendered, neither of them is accredited as a salaried employee or as insured, as it was set out: “5.10.1.\n\n[Nombre 029], alias “[Nombre 083]”, of legal age, Costa Rican, bearer of identity card [Valor 011], born on February 27, 1989, 31 years old, son of [Nombre 005] and [Nombre 006], married to [Nombre 026], identity card [Valor 010], registered address in [...]. 5.10.2. Costa Rican Social Security Fund Information. It was determined, according to queries made in the databases of the digital platform of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, electronic link: https://pensiones.ccss.sa.cr: that the individual under investigation here registered as a salaried employee in the years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, information broken down below: 5.10.3. Tax Information. In accordance with the query made on the Ministry of Finance page, specifically in the Taxpayer Identification System “SIC”, it was established that the individual under investigation here does not present and has not presented records of economic activities or tax obligations..[…] 5.12.1. [Nombre 026], of legal age, Costa Rican, bearer of identity card [Valor 010], born on September 19, 1994, 25 years old, daughter of [Nombre 027] and [Nombre 028], married to [Nombre 029], identity card [Valor 011], registered address in [...]. 5.12.2. Costa Rican Social Security Fund Information. It was determined, according to queries made in the databases of the digital platform of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, electronic link: https://pensiones.ccss.sa.cr: that the individual under investigation here registered as a salaried employee in the years 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018, information broken down below: For the years 2013 and 2014, continuous records appear from the month of October to January, during which she worked for the company MC Donalds Costa Rica CR Food Service S.A- Arcos Dorados Costa Rica ADCR S.A, under employer number [Valor 093]. For the years 2016, 2017, and 2018, she registered continuously from May 2016 to February 2018, where she worked for the company Acrílicos S.A, employer number 3-101-043120. 5.12.3. Tax Information. In accordance with the query made on the Ministry of Finance page, specifically in the Taxpayer Identification System “SIC”, it was established that the individual under investigation here does not present and has not presented records of economic activities or tax obligations.” (see report 25-SLC-CI-20, emphasis added)» [sic] (cf. pages 891 to 892 of the judgment). Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes that, contrary to what the appellants claimed, the judgment contains an adequate intellectual foundation regarding the actions attributed to [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], related to the administration of money derived from drug trafficking and its subsequent conversion into foreign currency—the situation of the latter will be elaborated upon when considering the appeals filed on her behalf—. Now, the aforementioned actions, in the opinion of the trial court, constitute the offenses of drug trafficking and money laundering, with which this Chamber concurs. Although it is true that there is a partial coincidence in the description of facts related to drug trafficking and money laundering, in points 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of the factual account, it is not necessary to dwell on this point, because, unlike the situation of the defendant [Nombre 026]—which will be analyzed in greater detail later—, in the case of [Nombre 029], additional facts are imputed that place him as a drug transporter for the organization, hence it is easier to observe and differentiate the principal actions of drug trafficking from those aimed at concealing money derived from that activity and its insertion into the financial system through conversion into foreign currency, for which he was declared a responsible perpetrator of the offense of money laundering. The penalty for the two crimes, which do not exclude each other, stems from the lack of a unity of action in a legal sense, coupled with the harm to protected legal interests of a different nature, so that, in this matter, the crime of drug trafficking does not integrally contain the totality of the actions carried out by [Nombre 029], and hence he is sanctioned, additionally, for the offense of money laundering. See that, in the criminal type provided for in numeral 69 of Law No. 8204, the legislator opted to sanction separately from the preceding offense anyone who acquires, converts, or transfers assets of economic interest, conceals or covers up their origin; as well as the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over different assets or their ownership, and anyone who helps the offender evade the legal consequences of their acts, so that, when the accused incurs actions additional to drug transportation, which fit this criminal description—as previously indicated—, the declaration of criminal responsibility for both offenses is entirely possible—refer to the reading of considerando XIII for greater breadth on this circumstance—. Bearing in mind that the two offenses attributed to [Nombre 029] were correctly weighed in the appealed judgment, it is appropriate to address some of the complaints raised by the technical and material defense in their challenges. Regarding the absence of direct evidence, such as flagrant seizures of drugs or money, this circumstance in no way diminishes the accreditation of the criminal responsibility of ([Nombre 004]), in the terms set forth in the judgment. Let us remember that our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence, according to which facts may be proven through any evidentiary element that has a lawful origin, as established by article 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The requirement of direct evidence sought by the appellants seems to allude to a system of tarifed evidence that is more than outdated. What is stated in the appeals, in the sense that the accused was convicted solely based on the content of the intercepted telephone communications, is not correct. Said evidentiary element constituted a highly relevant lead, with greater emphasis regarding the crime of money laundering, but it was not the only one. As is clear from the preceding lines, for the accreditation of the crime of drug trafficking, a significant number of proceedings were carried out involving surveillance and tracking of the individual, to corroborate the information derived from the captured conversations, but, furthermore, there were two parallel investigations in which significant drug seizures were carried out, which can be linked indefectibly to the defendant. Regarding the crime of money laundering, there are, in addition to the captured communications, the location of high-value assets in the possession of different members of the criminal organization, among them [Nombre 001], despite the fact that the persons investigated lacked lawful sources of income to justify them. Moreover, one must not forget the seizure of money carried out at the residence of [Nombre 022], who was one of the persons who, together with [Nombre 029], exchanged the organization's money, from colones to dollars, in different banking entities. The truth is that the body of evidence taken into consideration is broad and conclusive, without being limited solely to the interception of telephone communications, all of which was extensively addressed in this considerando. It is the joint weighing of the circumstantial evidence that allows concluding that the conclusions reached by the a quo are correct, regarding the involvement of ([Nombre 004]) in the offense of money laundering, in addition to his responsibility for the crime of illegal drug trafficking. Regarding the defendant's statement and the exculpatory evidence, which according to the appellants was not taken into consideration, this Chamber observes that the a quo indicated: «Regarding [Nombre 029]. In the exercise of his material defense, he stated that he worked for [Nombre 001] but in tasks of transporting and caring for his children, caring for the home when [Nombre 001]'s older son was born, and also in everything related to mechanics. The court considers that indeed Mr. ([Nombre 004]) performed such tasks but in addition to that also carried out all the actions that the Public Prosecutor's Office attributed to him. Ms. Marilen Solórzano, in his representation, adhered to the Defective Procedural Activity filed by Mr. Mena Ayales, questions that materializations were carried out, that the search of the house of [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] found no drugs, criticizes that the vehicle with plates [Valor 075] was not seized, likewise questions the surveillance carried out on [Nombre 029]. All the arguments were already covered in the ruling» (cf. page 790 of the judgment). Despite the brevity of the reasoning, from this it is possible to infer that the trial court did not discard the defensive thesis, in the sense that the defendant worked for [Nombre 001], as it is one of the aspects that emerges from the evidence; however, what it did not agree with is that the link between [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 001] was limited to lawful activities. The evidence adduced, far from indicating [Nombre 029]'s ignorance of the criminal activities of the criminal organization in general and of [Nombre 001] in particular, places him in a fundamental role carrying out the transfer of drugs for delivery to third parties, receiving the corresponding payment, and then performing actions aimed at the conversion, transmission, and concealment of that capital, knowing its illicit origin. Under this logic, the lack of a more extensive analysis of the defendant's statement causes him no harm, because when the prosecution's thesis is accredited, the defensive one, in the extremes that are opposed, is untenable. Based on the considerations set forth, this Chamber considers that the defects claimed by the accused in the second, third, and fourth grounds of his appeal, as well as the third ground from the technical defense, are not present in the judgment; consequently, they are declared without merit. \n\n11. First ground of the appeal against the judgment filed by the co-defendant [Nombre 029]. It claims “Disagreement with the determination of the penalty.” The appellant points out that, even though the technical defense offered as evidence a report on the personal conditions of the accused that could have influenced the commission of the crime, prepared by the Department of Social Work and Psychology, the trial court did not mention it nor assign it any probative value. He argues that, as a consequence of this, all the elements provided for in numeral 71 of the Penal Code for the determination of the penalty were not considered and, furthermore, the duty to state reasons provided for in articles 142 and 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was violated. As a grievance, he maintains that a penalty was imposed on him in breach of what is established in article 71 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which renders it ineffective. He requests that the judgment be annulled with respect to the determination of the penalty and a retrial be ordered. Fourth ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández on behalf of [Nombre 029]. It claims “Lack of motivation regarding the quantum of the sanction set against [Nombre 029].”\n\nAlthough she does not formally raise it as a claim, in the introductory part of her brief, Máster Solórzano Hernández argues that the amount of the penalty established against her client lacks proportionality in relation to the degree of participation attributed to him in the facts. She therefore requests that, if the finding of guilt is confirmed, the penalty be reviewed in light of the evidentiary elements and the mitigating circumstances presented at trial (cf. f. 7454 vto.). By majority, the complaint is upheld. The penalty imposed on [Name 029] was based on two separate sections: at folio 984, the one relating to the crime of drug trafficking is recorded, and at folio 992, the one referring to money laundering. A penalty of 12 years in prison was imposed for each of these offenses; however, the intellectual basis, besides being extremely brief and not fully addressing all the topics described in numeral 71 of the Penal Code, is the same for both offenses. Although some arguments may coincide to support the quantum of the sanction for both crimes, because the personal conditions of the accused are the same, there are others such as, for example, the objective and subjective aspects of the punishable act, the importance of the harm or danger, as well as the circumstances of time, manner, and place, which are different for each illicit activity proven, which is why a particular analysis is necessary.\n\nAlthough this Chamber was able to differentiate throughout the ruling the intellectual bases specific to the crime of drug trafficking from those of the crime of money laundering for the determination of criminal liability of [Name 029], the truth is that an adequate delimitation of each of them was not made when specifying the sanction for each illicit act. In other sections of this ruling, it has been indicated that the greater the penalty imposed on an accused person, the greater the standard that must be demanded regarding the reasoning and specificity of the decision, to ensure the sentenced person's right to know the reasons justifying the reproach made against them; to facilitate the control of the decision, both at the judicial and social levels; and, mainly, to avoid arbitrariness in the use of punitive power. Because the reasoning expressed proved deficient and does not achieve these objectives, the appropriate course is to declare the nullity of the penalty imposed for both offenses and order a remand for a new trial so that a different panel of the Criminal Court of the Specialized Jurisdiction against Organized Crime may substantiate it adequately. Based on the foregoing, by majority, the fourth ground of the technical defense and the first ground of the material defense are upheld; consequently, a remand for a new trial is ordered for the new substantiation of the penalty to be imposed for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering, at which time the principle of no reform in detriment (non reformatio in peius) operating in favor of [Name 029] must be respected. Judge Escalante Quirós issues a dissenting vote.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With profound respect, I depart from the decision of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare the first ground of the appeal filed by the accused [Name 029], as well as the fourth ground of the appeal filed by his technical defense, without merit. Contrary to what the appellants affirm, whose main arguments were accepted by the majority vote, I consider that the *a quo* court did adequately state the reasons for the two prison sentences imposed on ([Name 004]). This person was convicted of a drug trafficking offense and also for an illicit act of money laundering, committed in the context of his participation, as a co-perpetrator, within a very well-structured criminal organization with a very stable survival over time. Thus, from my point of view, it is reasonable that there are similarities in the reasoning of the reproach for both offenses, since the two crimes had as a common factor the existence of the same criminal network, but were also committed according to the special position held by ([Name 004]) within it. Therefore, in my judgment, it is not an error of the sentence that, when sizing the degree of culpability of the accused for both crimes, the characteristics of his location in the hierarchy of the criminal organization were weighed, as well as the logistical environment from which he acted, since it is reasonable that when setting the sanction for the two illicit acts committed by [Name 029], the court valued the physical and personal assets that, as a member of the criminal structure, were certainly the same ones used to commit both crimes. Upon reviewing the decision, specifically starting at folio 984 of the sentence, it can be determined that, regarding the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking, the decision-making body made it clear that ([Name 004]) acted in excess with respect to the elements of the criminal type, which reflects that, by making that higher degree of culpability visible, the sanction should also be higher, which I deem correct since the penalty must be just and proportional, as the trial court well determined. Thus, the main arguments of reproach recorded in the decision were the following: \"…*participates in a large number of events related to drug trafficking, given that his functions included the transport and delivery of drug shipments to other criminal organizations, meaning he had a vital function for the extension of the criminal organization's operation, which is extremely reprehensible. Like the other members, he is reproached for the number of people in the organization of which he was a part and its operation for at least 30 months. It is highly reproached that [Name 029] used his home as a storage point for money that was the product of drug trafficking, taking advantage of the privacy that a dwelling implies, in turn, the fact of having involved his romantic partner [Name 026] in the commission of the crime is extremely reprehensible. It is reiterated that his participation in the criminal organization led by [Name 001] was not that of just any member, but that of a trusted person of the leader to the point of being the person who carried out the transport of Mr. [Name 001]'s children…\"* (cf. sentence, folios 984 and 985; the bolded emphasis is not part of the original). As can be seen, the court reproached ([Name 004]) for being part of the criminal organization in the sale of drugs to third-party consumers, and also for having an essential task for the network to expand, explaining that this was because [Name 029] transported and delivered drugs to supply other criminal groups. Likewise, the sentence explained the higher degree of culpability by pointing out that the crime against public health was committed by ([Name 004]) in the context of a large-scale criminal organization, which the *a quo* deduced from the number of its members and the long period of time it had been operating. Without a doubt, it is not the same to be part of a small criminal network with little time in existence, in which functions of lesser relevance to the legal interest are exercised, as it is to do so as [Name 029] in the context of a gang of many members, which had already subsisted for several years, executing essential functions of greater reproach in view, precisely, of the legal interest. Along the same lines, the court illustrates the greater reproach of his conduct by pointing out that ([Name 004]) used his own home to store the money obtained by the organization from drug trafficking, as well as having also involved, as a co-perpetrator, his romantic partner and his brother. Finally, the jurisdictional body highlighted that the high penalty imposed on [Name 029] also responded to the fact that he was a member very close to the top of the pyramidal structure of the organization, as he had the trust of the leader not only for the illicit acts already mentioned but even for the transport of his children. This being the case, I consider that the reasoning of the penalty was correct, since the court's arguments comply with the parameters of Article 71 of the Penal Code, and it was an exercise in sizing the degree of culpability, which contextualized the special position of [Name 029] in the hierarchy of the criminal network, his role of trust and closeness to the boss not only in criminal matters but also in personal ones, as well as the essentiality of his labors in drug trafficking, which was linked to a greater danger to the legal interest. On the other hand, the reasoning for the conviction for the crime of money laundering is likewise in accordance with the law, from my point of view. Starting at folio 992, the *a quo* detailed the penalty corresponding to [Name 029] for that other crime, and it is important to underline what I indicated before, in the sense that both crimes were committed by ([Name 004]) based on the same criminal structure, his same location very close to the hierarchy of the criminal pyramid, and using the same resources. Therefore, I do not consider it a defect of the sentence to have used a large part of the same argumentation when justifying the two penalties imposed on the accused. If it was proven in the sentence that [Name 029] had the trust of the leader of the criminal enterprise, not only in aspects linked to the drug business but even in personal matters, and that he had a very relevant position in the context of a structure composed of many people that had also existed for a long time, those are common factors for the reproach regarding the two crimes that, in the environment of that criminal participation, ([Name 004]) committed. In the same sense, if the greater culpability of [Name 029] was inferred from his essential contribution to the functioning and expansion of the criminal network regarding drug trafficking, that same factor can be validly considered when reproaching him for the laundering of capital from drug activity. Thus, in my judgment, the penalty for this latter crime is also in accordance with legal duties of reasoning, when the court stated that the defendant, as occurred with drug trafficking, exceeded the minimum legal reproach, because: \"…*participates in a large number of events related to money loans and the collection of interest, money changing, money storage, meaning he had a vital function for the extension of the criminal organization's operation, which is extremely reprehensible. Like the other members, he is reproached for the number of people in the organization of which he was a part and its operation for at least 30 months. It is highly reproached that [Name 029] used his home as a storage point for money that was the product of drug trafficking, taking advantage of the privacy that a dwelling implies, in turn, the fact of having involved his romantic partner [Name 026] in the commission of the crime of money laundering, when recruiting a large number of people to make bank deposits and change money, is extremely reprehensible. It is reiterated that his participation in the criminal organization led by [Name 001] was not that of just any member, but that of a trusted person of the leader to the point of being the person who carried out the transport of Mr. [Name 001]'s children…\"* (cf. sentence, folio 992; the bolded emphasis is not part of the original). As can be noted, the basis for the penalty for the crime of money laundering is similar, but not identical, to that used by the court regarding the judgment of reproach for drug trafficking. As indicated, the aspects common to both offenses were again used to state the reasons for the sanction, but this is reasonable because they are two crimes committed in the same criminal reality, the relevant point being that the court did clearly differentiate between the participation of [Name 029] in drug trafficking, with respect to his contributions to money laundering. Therefore, I depart from the criterion of the majority of this appellate chamber and declare the cited grounds of both appeals without merit.-\n\n**Second ground of the appeal filed by the co-accused [Name 026].** Alleges \"*Disagreement with the evaluation of the evidence*\".\n\nThe appellant argues that the condemnatory sentence issued against her failed to observe the guiding principles of circumstantial evidence: 1) An unknown fact cannot be inferred from another unknown fact; 2) Unity of the indicating fact with respect to the indication; 3) Gravity, precision, and concordance of the indications. She indicates that the exclusive basis for her conviction for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) consists of intercepted calls targeting her, but the data obtained from these are absolutely amphibological. She argues that a simple review of the telephone sequences allows one to verify that they speak of \"baby,\" \"babys,\" \"that thing\" (aquello), and \"thing\" (coso), which in no way could be considered grave and precise indications; rather, the judicial police performed an \"extensive\" interpretation of said terms in order to convict her. She alleges that no materialization of the objective data was carried out to confirm the police presumption; instead, \"*the judicial police simply listened to conversations and did not exercise any method that would allow corroborating the truthfulness of what was being discussed on the phone, leaving the indication destined to be taken at most as a supposition*\" (cf. f. 7344 front). Regarding the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), she argues that it was not possible to provide the files or receipts from the financial institutions where the payments or currency exchanges were made. By virtue of the foregoing, she points out that it cannot be ruled out that these were fantastical or ambiguous conversations. She refers, as a grievance, that she was convicted using amphibological indications, thus violating her right to evidentiary sufficiency. She requests the nullity of the sentence and the remand for a new trial. First ground for challenge filed by Master Marilén Solórzano Hernández, private defense attorney for [Name 026]. She claims \"*Disagreement with the evaluation of the evidence*.\"\n\nThe technical defense maintains that, contrary to what is established by articles 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights; 39 and 41 of the Political Constitution; as well as articles 6 (principle of legality and due process), 9 (presumption of innocence), 146 (burden of proof), 175 (evaluation of evidence), 184 (integral analysis of the evidence), 363 (illicit evidence and nullity), and 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), in this matter the evidence was not analyzed in an objective, integral, and reasonable manner. As a first aspect, she argues that there is no direct evidence (documentary or testimonial) that unequivocally points to the responsibility of [Name 026] in the acts attributed to her, such as, for example, \"*testimonies of people who have observed the transactions, bank records directly linked to her, or material evidence such as the seizure of money*\" (cf. f. 7474 front). As a second point, she refers, regarding the administration of the money, that although specific amounts are mentioned, the evidence presented does not establish that the money was effectively the product of illicit activity and also does not clearly indicate that the defendant was responsible for the custody and administration of said sums. Finally, she notes that there are errors in the interpretation of the testimony of the co-defendants, who are given a leading role, but without the existence of \"*additional material evidence that can directly link my client to the criminal activities of the criminal organization*\" (ibid.). She explains that it was not sufficiently demonstrated that the records of money and goods mentioned were directly linked to [Name 026]. She indicates, as a grievance, that the proven facts were evaluated in a fragmented manner and that the prosecution and defense evidence was not correctly analyzed, which resulted in an erroneous conviction. The appellant requests that her client be acquitted for lack of reliable evidence to demonstrate her participation in the acts, and subsidiarily, that the case be remanded for a new proceeding. She also requires that the precautionary measure of pretrial detention be set aside, \"*given that there is no risk of flight or danger to public safety*\" (cf. 7475 front).\n\n**The complaints must be dismissed**. The manner in which the *a quo* court considered the actions of custody, accounting, and conversion into foreign currency of money from drug trafficking, attributed to both [Name 026] and her husband, to have been accredited, was extensively analyzed in considering X of the present ruling, when reviewing the second, third, and fourth grounds of the appeal filed by [Name 029] and the third ground managed on her behalf by the private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández, specifically in section B), titled \"*Custody, Administration and Conversion into Foreign Currency of Money Derived from Drug Trafficking*,\" for which reason, in order to avoid unnecessary reiterations, reference is made to what was decided therein. As stated in said considering, this Chamber finds that the evidentiary evaluation carried out by the trial court was adequate, by establishing that, in effect, [Name 029] and [Name 026], jointly collected and administered in their home, money from drug trafficking, which they inserted into the national banking system through currency exchange, for the subsequent acquisition of high-value goods by other members of the criminal group, for which reason the specific complaints raised by the technical and material defense, which will be referred to below, have no basis. Contrary to what was affirmed by the appellants, this Chamber finds that the sentence does not contain errors in the evaluation of the evidence that must be declared in this instance. The challengers seem to understand that the absence of direct evidence prevented deriving criminal responsibility against the defendant [Name 026]; however, they omit to consider that our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence, provided for in article 182 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), according to which \"*Facts and circumstances of interest for the correct solution of the case may be proven by any permitted means of evidence, except for express legal prohibition*.\" In this case, the accreditation of the defendant's responsibility was carried out based on circumstantial evidence, which was evaluated jointly and concatenated, leading to a single possible conclusion, which was the defendant's responsibility in the money laundering (legitimación de capitales) of proceeds from drug trafficking that was charged to her. It was not by chance that the *a quo* court analyzed the criminal responsibility of the indicted [Name 026] and her husband [Name 029] jointly, since the evidence establishes that they are a married couple who took part in an organization dedicated to drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales). The trial court validly considered it established that [Name 029] carried out actions typical of drug transportation, by mandate of [Name 001] — see considering X of this resolution — . This is the starting point in the analysis of the criminal responsibility of [Name 026], because she was aware of said activity, and her will and knowledge regarding the role assumed by her in the concealment, storage, and currency exchange of money obtained from drug trafficking was also accredited, which is derived not only from the telephone interceptions — see in this sense sequence 0037100, from the intercepted line [Value 064], at 00:48 hours on December 7, 2018 — , but also because she herself accompanied the defendant to make a drug delivery on December 28, 2018, in the Tirrases sector of Curridabat, to the organization investigated in case file 18-000017-1219-PE — as related by the judicial investigators and confirmed with sequence 0029513, from line [Value 064], at 20:51 hours on December 30, 2018 — . That knowledge is evidenced in a very particular way, when ([Name 004]) commented by telephone to another person, about the fear his wife had felt, due to the police surveillance they faced on that occasion. As already noted, it is clear from the telephone interceptions that [Name 026] had knowledge that her husband was the person in charge of receiving money as payment for the trafficked drug — sequence 0037100 — . Furthermore, the sentence states, based on the statement of the judicial investigators and the content of the telephone interceptions, the price per kilo of cocaine that was trafficked by the organization was around ₡ 5,100,000, so the significant amounts of cash that were collected and administered by the defendants [Name 026] and [Name 029] made sense — ₡ 7,289,000, ₡ 4,600,000 and ₡ 9,490,000 — . Now, to consider it accredited that the defendants had custody of those amounts of money, it is true that the principal reliance was on the content of the telephone interceptions — sequences 0001622, at 16:34 hours on December 6, 2018; 0013990, at 21:12 hours on December 21, 2018 and 0029642 at 00:31 hours on December 31, 2018 — , but as already indicated, their content is clear and explicit, so it is not necessary to resort to external interpretations or corroborations to apprehend their content. The same occurs with the communications in which [Name 026] and her husband coordinated with third parties for currency exchange at different banking entities in the capital — sequences 0010354, 0010421, 0039634, 0045996, 0046048, 0046092, 0046235, 0046263, 0051493, 0056119, 0058788, 0062004, 0062186, 0063280 and 0200128 — . If to all this information we add that one of the persons with whom the currency exchange was coordinated was [Name 022], alias \"[Name 123],\" at whose domicile $10,000 in cash were seized; that high economic value goods were located in the possession of the organization, some in use and enjoyment of [Name 001], leader of the criminal organization, and that [Name 029] and [Name 026] lack lawful remunerative activities that justify the handling of such important sums of money, the only reasonable conclusion is that the large amounts of money they possessed and administered came from the activity of drug trafficking. We see that, contrary to what was stated by the appellants, the existing indications are indeed grave, precise, concordant, and lead to a single conclusion, which has already been developed. To arrive at alternative conclusions, the only way would be to fragment the evidence and value each indication independently, which is not feasible in a system that promotes sound judicial discretion. Regarding the absence of files or receipts from financial entities proving the currency exchange, it in no way detracts from the conclusions reached by the *a quo* court. Weighted evidence is not admissible in our procedural system, so the absence of specific elements of proof does not impede the accreditation of a fact, if other lawful elements exist that reveal it. The appellants seem to understand that the lack of bank receipts for each of the deposits made leaves the thesis subsisting that the custody of money, the banking movements, and currency exchange discussed by [Name 026], could be fantastical or imaginary. However, it is this conjecture that is subjective and unfounded, because what is logical and reasonable is that a criminal organization involves itself in drug trafficking, precisely to obtain substantial profits, it being unsustainable, rather, that such returns are \"imaginary\"; this latter thesis that, in any case, was refuted by the seizure of high sums of money at the homes of [Name 015] and her children [Name 022] and [Name 013]; of [Name 016] and [Name 001] himself. Finally, errors are claimed in the evaluation of the statements of the indicted persons, which is stated generically, because it is not established concretely what they consist of.\n\nOf interest regarding the legal situation of [Nombre 026], the statement of her husband [Nombre 029] is noted, who declared that he was an employee of [Nombre 001] in various lawful activities, such as transporting people. However, his statement, in light of the prosecution's evidence, completely collapses, because it was proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that in addition to those activities, he also transported drugs. It is the origin of the money in this illicit activity that explains the precautions taken to avoid being discovered by the police, the care taken in how they spoke on the telephone, as well as hiding and \"diluting\" cash movements, through front persons (testaferros), currency exchanges, and deposits from third parties recruited by the organization. Hence, it is possible to deduce that the money managed by [Nombre 029] together with [Nombre 026] had its origin in drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). Based on the circumstances set forth, since the defects alleged by the appellants in the analysis of the evidence are not detected, the complaints are declared without merit (sin lugar).\n\n**XIII. First ground of the appeal of the judgment (recurso de apelación de sentencia) filed personally by the co-defendant [Nombre 026].** She claims \"Disagreement with the determination of the facts (Inconformidad con la determinación de los hechos)\". She alleges that the principle *non bis in idem*, provided for in article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), prevents a person from being tried twice for the same facts or what, in her opinion, is the same thing, \"the same facts cannot serve as a basis to support a conviction for two different crimes\" (f. 7341 vto.). She cites in her support the judgment Loayza Tamayo vs. Perú, issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos). She argues that, in the specific case, based on the accreditation of facts 4 to 4.5 of the accusatory instrument, [Nombre 026] and ([Nombre 004]) were convicted for the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas), by being held responsible for recruiting people to make deposits of money proceeds from the trafficking of illicit substances, in addition to performing functions in the purchase and exchange of currency. She indicates that the evidentiary support for said conviction was the information obtained from the interception of the following sequences of telephone calls: 1) 0010354; 2) 0010427; 3) 0039634; 4) 0045996; 5) 0046048. She points out that, based on the same facts, evidence, and intellectual reasoning, the lower court (a quo) also proceeded to convict her for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Specifically, she refers—for this second crime—to the telephone sequences: 1) 0010427; 2) 0039634; 3) 0045996; 4) 0046048; 5) 0046092. She states that there is no basis whatsoever to separate the facts and evidence on the basis of which she was convicted for the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas) and those that served as the basis for the conviction for money laundering (legitimación de capitales), which caused her grievance by violating due process (debido proceso). She requests that the conviction handed down against her be declared null and void and that the matter be remitted for trial (juicio) for a single crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). **Second ground of the appeal of the judgment (recurso de apelación de sentencia) filed by licensed attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández on behalf of [Nombre 026].** She claims \"Disagreement due to the existence of double prosecution for the same facts (Inconformidad por la existencia de doble imputación por los mismos hechos)\". The legal counsel argues that [Nombre 026] was charged with various conducts that constitute a single crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Despite this, the lower court (a quo) contravened the principle *non bis in ídem*, provided for in Article 34 of the Penal Code (Código Penal), because a double penalty was imposed for the single conduct attributed to [Nombre 026], since, based on the same facts constituting money laundering, which consist of recruiting third persons to make deposits and to safeguard money, the defendant was also convicted of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). She argues that, by dividing said activities into \"different charges related to the same crime\" (f. 7476 fte.), the court erred in interpreting and excessively fragmenting the factual picture, because from her perspective the activities attributed to [Nombre 026] and ([Nombre 004]), must be understood as a global action of money laundering. She indicates that the calls with sequence 010354, 0010427, 0039634, 0045996, 0046048, were used to support, under the same reasoning, both the conviction for drug trafficking and the conviction for money laundering (legitimación de capitales). She points out as normative support for her claim, Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos), 39 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and 34 of the Penal Code (Código Penal). She adds that \"in various rulings, our Court has stressed that the filing of multiple charges based on the same facts without a proper distinction between procedural acts is inappropriate and goes against the guarantees of the defense\" (f. 7476 vto.). She raises as a grievance that the double prosecution for the same facts produced a breach of the *non bis in idem* principle, such that her client was \"convicted for conducts that in reality constitute a single infraction, resulting in a double penalty reaching twenty years of imprisonment and affecting her right to due process and defense\" (cfr. f. 7477 fte.). She requests, based on the foregoing, that the appealed verdict be revoked, that [Nombre 026] be acquitted of the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas) and that \"her responsibility be assessed only in accordance with the correct classification\" (f. 7477 fte.), which in her opinion consists of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Concomitantly, she requests that \"the precautionary measure of pretrial detention be lifted while another trial takes place\" (f. 7477 vto.). **For the reasons that will be stated, the claim is declared without merit (sin lugar)** (drafted by Judge Renauld Castro). To respond to the complaint, it is necessary to outline the proven factual picture linking the defendant [Nombre 026] and which coincides with the accusation: *\"1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas), which centered its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for storing, distributing, and selling drugs, as well as for receiving money proceeds from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: The storage and dosage of the drug caches acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including supplying the caches to the various points of sale.*\n\nThe commercialization of drug shipments belonging to the criminal group to other narco bands based in the national territory. The commercialization of drug shipments belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug-dependent individuals, through the properties held by the organization for this purpose, of the “Bunkers” type, as well as on public roads in the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, using various means to that end. 3. This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal fashion, so each of its members carried out specific functions, all in a single direction, the commercialization of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows: […] **[Name 026]**: member of the organization, who among other functions was tasked with assisting the accused ([Name 004]), in the collection and storage of money derived from the distribution and sale of drugs carried out by the criminal organization; moreover, he recruited third parties outside the narco band to make systematic deposits to the accounts used by the organization for the purpose of inserting the money from the illicit activity into the national financial system and facilitating the enjoyment and investment of those profits by the members of the criminal structure […] 4. During the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2019, the criminal organization formed by the accused carried out a series of criminal actions in pursuit of the ultimate goal of the organization, which is drug trafficking, among which the following stand out: 4.1 As part of the operational model used by the Criminal Organization, the accused [Name 001], designated the accused [Name 029], for the purpose of making deliveries of narcotic substances to other criminal organizations, rooted in the central valley, for which they used a Mitsubishi brand vehicle, Montero style, license plate [Value 075], which had compartments specially designed for the transport of shipments of narcotics, likewise it was delegated to the accused [Name 026] and ([Name 004]), the administration of the money derived from drug trafficking. 4.2 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 6, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the residence located at [...], an approximate amount of 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. 4.3 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 21, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the residence located at [...], an approximate amount of 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. 4.4 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 31, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposal, and storage, in the residence located at [...], an approximate amount of 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug-trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be introduced into the national financial system. 4.5 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, during the period of 2018 until the month of October 2020, the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], were in charge of the function of recruiting third parties, who were charged with making deposits of money derived from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as carrying out the functions of currency exchange and purchase, this with the purpose of introducing the money derived from drug trafficking into the national banking system […] 5.\n\nDuring the investigation period from April 2018 through October 2020, the Criminal Organization composed of the investigated individuals [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016], [Name 019], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, and transfer assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or the ownership thereof, knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity carried out and led by the accused [Name 001]. [...] 6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, search, registration, and seizure (allanamiento, registro y secuestro) proceedings were conducted at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, resulting in the arrest of the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts, as set forth below [...] 6.8 Regarding the outcome of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings conducted at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], the following result was obtained and corresponds to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking:\n\n• A black and pink notebook with the legend \"Femme,\" bearing the brand in the upper right-hand corner \"El líder,\" with a total of ninety-eight (98) folios containing annotations of various accounts.\n• A gray Huawei brand cellular phone, model Huawei MLAL02, with no visible IMEI.\n• A black Nokia brand cellular phone with IMEI number 352905101877359, with a Movistar brand SIM card bearing the number 8950604001911308753F.\n• A total amount of cash in the sum of ₡323,000.00 colones (Three Hundred Twenty-Three Thousand Colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused.\n• A receipt for money to third parties from the Ministry of Justice and Peace, CAI Vilma Curling Rivera, indicating receipt by [Name 029], with an adhesive slip bearing the name [Name 155].\n• An Apple brand cellular phone, pink iPhone model, IMEI 355734070780270, with a SIM card without a visible brand bearing the number 8950604302807581416; in addition, a black Samsung brand cellular phone was collected with IMEI 355286105100636, IMEI #2 355286105100644, with a Movistar SIM card bearing the number 8950604001907110389F, with a 4GB Adata brand micro SD memory card.\n• A black Huawei brand cellular phone, IMEI 866368040451035, with a Claro brand SIM card bearing the number 3950603018885857562F, with a 4GB Adata brand micro SD memory card.\" [sic] (cf. pp. 276 to 313 of the judgment. Emphasis supplied). Based on the factual background transcribed above, [Name 026] was found to be the responsible perpetrator of the offenses of aggravated drug trafficking (cf. p. 896 of the judgment) and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) (cf. p. 913 of the judgment), which led to the imposition of 10 years of imprisonment for each offense (cf. pp. 988 and 933 of the judgment), for a total of 20 years of imprisonment. Now, regarding the specific conduct that the Prosecution formally attributed to [Name 026], this Chamber differs in finding that the deposit of money into third-party accounts was proven, as explained in Considerando X of this resolution, to which reference is made. However, as will be analyzed below, even discarding the specific action mentioned above, the necessary requirements for conviction on both offenses are met, since it was indeed proven that [Name 026] carried out the following charged conduct: (i) collection, storage, and administration of money from drug trafficking at her residence; (ii) recruitment of third parties to insert money from the illicit activity into the national financial system through currency exchange. It was also held as true that the defendant carried out both actions within the framework of a prior agreement with the remaining members of the criminal organization.\n\nIn this vein, the event that occurred on December 28, 2018, in summary case 18-0000171219-PE, referred to as “Caso El Bueno,” whose certified copy was introduced as evidence in this matter, makes it possible to establish the full knowledge that the defendant [Name 026] had regarding the drug transport and delivery activity carried out by her cohabitant, [Name 029], to the criminal organization led by [Name 099], alias “[Name 109],” in the Tirrases de Curridabat sector, acting in effect as a member of the criminal group led by [Name 001]. Certainly, participation in said activity, specifically the transport of psychotropic substances, could not be attributed to [Name 026], as it was not charged against her, but it does allow for the evidentiary strengthening of her knowledge regarding the origin of the monies her romantic partner received, so that she would conceal them in the common dwelling. Regarding the will of [Name 026] to actively participate in the illegal drug trade, through the two specific functions indicated above (storage of money and recruitment of persons for its exchange into foreign currency), the trial judges reasoned: “Having more than clear the operational dynamics in that given time period, where it was also determined that [Name 029] and [Name 026], who were also a couple, performed functions designated by [Name 001], with respect to the accounting and administration of money derived from Drug trafficking, given that on December 6, 2018, they held in their custody, disposal, and storage, at the dwelling located in [...], an approximate sum of 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and was intended to be introduced into the national financial system […] It was also credited that as part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], with respect to the accounting and administration of money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 21, 2018, they held in their custody, disposal, and storage, at the dwelling located in [...], an approximate sum of 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and was intended to be introduced into the national financial system […] Continuing with the same line of reasoning, it was proven that as part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], with respect to the accounting and administration of money derived from Drug trafficking, on December 31, 2018, they held in their custody, disposal, and storage, at the dwelling located in [...], an approximate sum of 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and was intended to be introduced into the national financial system […] note that it is clear that when discussing monies between the two of them, generally [Name 029] is away from his home and it is [Name 026] who must check the sums of money, it being clear then that [Name 026] is at those moments at the home where they reside, being this: [...], precisely their common one, as was set forth in the raid request IP-138-EN-20 folio 5, a domicile that was, by the way, confirmed at the time of carrying out the raids in October 2020.\n\nNow, regarding the sums of money mentioned in the calls and that form part of the facts taken as proven, namely approximately 7,289,000 colones (06 December 2018), approximately 4,600,000 colones (21 December 2018), and approximately 9,490,000 colones (31 December 2018), it is evidently extracted from the conversations that this is cash kept in the house of both and stored in different bags, amounts that are in turn known to [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], but beyond that, it must be kept in mind that it is clear, according to the temporal space of preparation of the police report IP-033-EN-19, that [Nombre 029], as a member of the organization led by [Nombre 001], was dedicated to the trade of what he called \"babies, babys\", to refer to the drug packages he transported to other organizations in the vehicle with license plate [Valor 075], and given that the functioning of the organization was determined from at least the month of April of the year 2018, the three previously referenced events are fully accredited within the accused temporal framework […] Subsequently to the 3 events analyzed above, it is taken as proven that as part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, in the period from the month of January of the year 2019 until the month of October of the year 2020, the accused [Nombre 026] and [Nombre 029], were in charge of the function of recruiting third parties, who were responsible for making deposits of money from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as performing the functions inherent to currency exchange and purchase, with the purpose of incorporating the money from drug trafficking into the national banking system […] taking into account the facts taken as proven against [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], delegates thus designated by the leader [Nombre 001] and that occurred on 06 December, 21 December, and 31 December, all of the year 2018, in the criminal actions the global phenomenon of the crime of drug trafficking in its modalities at the national level (street-level dealing, micro-trafficking) can be understood, from which experience has instructed us in the complexity and totality of the scope of this illicit act, given that one of the pillars in the continuous action of these criminal groups and therefore their utmost motivation derives from the acquisitive power and the immense monetary gains that have as their genesis the trafficking of prohibited substances, gains that, having their origin from a punishable act, they must attempt to legitimize and introduce into our national economic and financial system, the previous communications reflecting a clear example of this affirmation, evidencing the distinct tasks performed by [Nombre 029] alias [Nombre 083] using his telephone number [Valor 077] and in the case of [Nombre 026] using the telephone service [Valor 090], both telephone services duly accredited to each of them as analyzed in the three prior events; thus then the functions of both in the recruitment of persons to make bank deposits, currency exchange and/or purchase are clearly understood, the female being in charge on different occasions of finding people or \"front persons\" (prestanombres) whose sole purpose is to make bank deposits of high amounts of money in a fragmented manner and thereby avoid any alert issued by any banking entity and thus avoid any trace of the banking activity, it is for this reason that it is more than accredited that they carried out actions to convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as conceal the true nature, the origin, knowing that the money stored by them, originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Nombre 001] […] Finally, and by way of closing, it has clearly been demonstrated that [Nombre 029] was the person designated by [Nombre 001] for the delivery of the drug caches that were being commercialized at that moment, since in a telephone call [Nombre 029] makes reference to [Nombre 026] that she told the “[Nombre 136]” that people already had the money for the babies, which evidently means that the drug was not given away, but rather money was received in exchange for it, a circumstance that in turn allows one to infer that Mr. [Nombre 001] also delegated the administration and custody of said money to [Nombre 029] and his domestic partner [Nombre 026], custody and administration that was carried out from the dwelling of both, one must not forget the constant calls between them, making reference to the counting of the money from the babies or half babies, to specific amounts and also as part of its administration they recruited people to make bank deposits and currency exchange, without forgetting that regarding [Nombre 026] in the call with sequence 0014218, [Nombre 026] says to [Nombre 152]: “let him come by the boss's place”, and [Nombre 152] says: “by [Nombre 153]'s place?”, [Nombre 026] agrees, and in turn tells him it is to give him some money. We see then how for [Nombre 026] the figure of alias “[Nombre 153]” is referring to the boss, which is the same as saying chief, undoubtedly referring to alias “[Nombre 084]” who is obviously [Nombre 001], for this reason it is totally understandable that [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] acted fulfilling the functions that were evidently designated and delegated to them by [Nombre 001]» [sic] (cfr. fs. 394 to 409 of the sentence. Underlining does not correspond to the original). In accordance with the above, it is important to establish that, at the level of accusation and the existing evidentiary support, it has been possible to accredit that both the storage, accounting and safeguarding of money proceeding from the illicit drug trade, as well as the recruitment of persons to exchange said money for dollars and by that means achieve its introduction into the national financial system for its full enjoyment by the organization, are functions that the accused developed by means of prior agreement and by express delegation from [Nombre 001].\n\nThus, [Name 074] was not only aware of the drug trafficking (narcotráfico) activity carried out by the group, but also wished to join it, assuming the role corresponding to her, according to the agreed division of functions. At this point, it is important to recall that the starting point for determining whether the contribution made by a person within the framework of a crime committed jointly with others constitutes co-perpetration (coautoría) or another form of participation is the essentiality of the contribution. Thus, the theory of functional dominion of the act postulates that one who has functional dominion (and, therefore, is a co-perpetrator) is \"whoever controls certain essential portions of the execution of the crime\" (De Vicente Martínez, Rosario: \"Types of Perpetration and Types of Participation\". In: Demetrio Crespo (coord.): Criminal Law Lessons, Volume II. Editorial Jurídica Continental, San José, 2016, p. 299). In this matter, as already indicated, it was alleged that [Name 026] assumed functions of collecting and safeguarding the money obtained from the illicit trade of narcotics in her dwelling house, while also undertaking the recruitment of front persons (testaferros) to participate in changing said money from colones to dollars and thus inserting the funds into the national banking system. Thus, although it might be thought that the role assumed by [Name 026] is located in the exhaustion phase or final link of the illicit activity of violating the Psychotropic Substances Law, we are facing a crime composed of a succession of acts of possession, transfer, and sale of illicit substances in which [Name 074] actively and repeatedly took part, performing the function she assumed within the organization, to the point that the trial court identified several occasions in which, ([Name 004]), in association with [Name 026], safeguarded the money obtained from the drug transactions carried out by the former. Regarding the importance of the role in question, its essentiality for the drug trafficking activity is undeniable, since obtaining profits is the raison d'être and ultimate goal of the organization, besides the fact that it was proven (accused and proven facts number 5) that part of the funds obtained from that illicit trade was used for: 1) the purchase of vehicles that were placed at the service of the organization, for drug transfers and the security devices related to said activity and the protection of the leader, [Name 001]; 2) the construction of the dwelling in León XIII, which functioned as the group's operations center. It is concluded, from all the foregoing, that the function of storing and safeguarding the profits obtained from the sale of drugs assumed by [Name 026] places her as a co-perpetrator of the crime provided for in numeral 58 of Law No. 8204 of December 26, 2001. Now then, it cannot be overlooked that the concealment or safeguarding of drug trafficking monies and the recruitment of third persons to function as front persons for exchanging the money into dollars with a view to its subsequent introduction into the banking system also form part of the typical description of the figure of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), provided for in numeral 69 of Law No. 8204: \"Shall be punished with a prison sentence of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts, or transfers assets of economic interest, knowing that they originate from a crime that, within its penalty range, can be punished with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to conceal or disguise the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever conceals or disguises the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement, or rights over the assets or their ownership, knowing that they come, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its penalty range can be punished with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more. The penalty shall be ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, when the assets of economic interest originate from any of the crimes related to the illicit traffic of narcotics, psychotropic substances, money laundering, diversion of precursors, essential chemical substances, and related crimes, conducts classified as terrorist, in accordance with current legislation or when the purpose is the financing of acts of terrorism and terrorist organizations.\" The concealment by [Name 074] of assets she knew came from drug trafficking, as well as her role in the transformation phase, through the recruitment of persons to undertake the currency exchange and subsequent deposit of said funds, also place her as a co-perpetrator of the crime of money laundering. Now then, the coexistence of the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering, when the active subject of the second crime is also a co-perpetrator of the preceding crime —a phenomenon more synthetically referred to as self-laundering (autolavado)— is a topic widely debated in doctrine and jurisprudence. In that order of ideas, there are doctrinal positions indicating that the penalization of self-laundering for the active subject of the preceding crime constitutes an infringement of the principle of non bis in idem, insofar as the judgment of reproach for the first illicit act already includes the acts of concealment, use, or conversion of the assets or money obtained through its commission. Regarding this discussion —which is unavoidable in view of the object of the claim herein— it has been indicated: \"An important sector of doctrine has defended double incrimination using as the main argument the diversity of the legal interests affected: that which is attacked by the principal infraction and the socio-economic order as the object of protection of the post-criminal conduct. A different conclusion must be reached, however, if one admits that laundering presents a concealing nature and, consequently, considers the attack that these acts imply for the proper functioning of the Administration of Justice. Halfway between both positions are those who generally admit the punishment of self-laundering, but point out some exceptions depending on the performance of certain commission modalities\" (Vidales Rodríguez, Caty (Coord.): The Crime of Money Laundering, San José, Editorial Jurídica Continental, 2021, pp. 48-49). Based on the distinction between the disvalue of the conduct and the legal interests protected in the crime of illegal drug trafficking and their correlates in the crime of money laundering, but also due to the existence of a typical requirement that differentiates the illicit act of concealment from the figure of money laundering, Dr. Francisco Castillo assumed the thesis of the coexistence of responsibility for money laundering and for the preceding crime, in the same person. In this regard, he explained: \"The criminal types in Article 69, subsections a) and b) of the Psychotropic Substances Law do not limit the circle of perpetrators to specific persons. In this, these criminal types differ from the criminal types provided for in Articles 322, 323, 324, and 325 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, we cannot say that in the crime of money laundering the solution provided by the legislator for concealment applies, of excluding as perpetrator of this crime whoever is the perpetrator or participant of the prior act. An exception to these principles is the conduct provided for in Article 69, subsection a) of the Psychotropic Substances Law of helping the person who has participated in the other prior crimes to evade the legal consequences of their acts and the case of asset laundering provided for in Article 47 of the Anti-Corruption Law […] We believe that the thesis of the impunity of acts of perpetration and participation in the crime of money laundering for having been the perpetrator or participant of the prior crime has no de lege lata application in Article 69, subsections a) and b) of the Psychotropic Substances Law, whether the matter is viewed from the perspective of perpetration or co-perpetration or from participation (instigation and complicity). The foregoing with the exception of acts aimed at concealing another's participation in the prior crime, provided for in Article 69, subsection a) of the Psychotropic Substances Law […] As we have already said, in the criminal types of Article 69, subsections a) and b) of the Psychotropic Substances Law, in addition to the legal interest of the Administration of Justice, the collective interest of the non-contamination of the legal economic and financial system with objects of economic interest coming from crimes that can be punished with imprisonment of four years or more or from any of the crimes provided for in the Narcotics Law is protected […] No logical reason is seen for not punishing the perpetrator (or participant) of the prior act who carries out the money laundering act to self-benefit, since there is no total coincidence between the legal interests violated by the prior act and by the laundering crime\" (Castillo González, Francisco. The crime of money laundering. Editorial Jurídica Continental, San José, 2012, pp. 76-79). Thus, the renowned national jurist joins the majority position assumed by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling No. 2016-808 of 9:58 a.m. on August 5, 2016: \"Not all those constitutive acts of a criminal concatenation are punishable solely by their principal or central act. Although such situations are frequently known empirically, that does not mean it is always so. The difference is marked when some of the other prior or subsequent activities are themselves provided for as a crime or are typified (in observance of the principle of legality) and cause their own harm, which is not disvalued in the principal or central act (principle of harm). […] So that, in summary, if in the present matter of money laundering charged to Messrs. U.R.\n\nand A.G., there is (a) a typified conduct apart from the international drug trafficking for which they were convicted and (b) its disvalue or harm is independent of it; it is another conduct that is also punishable. […] It is evident, then, that it concerns a typical conduct different from drug trafficking and whose description is not contained in Article 58. Subsequently, from the very letter of the law it follows that it concerns actions that threaten or harm diverse legal interests, since while illicit drug trafficking affects public health, in money laundering (legitimación de capitales) the harm is to the financial system of the economy into which the assets originating from that activity are inserted. Consequently, money laundering (legitimación de capitales), despite being a crime frequently linked to drug trafficking, does not form part of it as a crime, but is an independent crime» (the underlining does not correspond to the original). This Chamber endorses said position and, therefore, concludes that, with the conviction of [Name 026] for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) that occurred in this matter, the guarantee of non bis in idem was not violated. According to Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country”. The appellants mistakenly consider that the distinct actions for which the accused was held responsible cannot simultaneously constitute drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales), so, from their perspective, only a conviction for one of those crimes would be valid, since otherwise, it would entail a breach of the non bis in idem principle. Thus, what the appellants raise, in a veiled manner, is the existence of an apparent concurrence of norms (concurso aparente de normas) whenever the perpetrator of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is also the perpetrator of the predicate offense. An apparent concurrence (concurso aparente) occurs when the same conduct is described in several provisions that are mutually exclusive, so it is only possible to apply one of them (cf. section 23 of the Penal Code). Indeed, if we were faced with this type of concurrence, a conviction for both crimes would be improper. However, not only because we are faced with a scenario of plurality of actions, but because each one of the illicit acts in question protects dissimilar legal interests, the application of the apparent concurrence must be discarded. Upon analyzing the particular characteristics of this matter, this Chamber concludes that we are faced with multiple actions in a natural and legal sense, which configure two independent crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales), whose application is not mutually exclusive. As stated, the criterion for determining that the application of the illicit act of drug trafficking does not exclude that of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) (or vice versa), under the criteria of specialty, consumption (consunción) or alternativity, consists of the dissimilar nature of the legal interests protected in one case and the other. In this sense, the disvalue of the illicit act of drug trafficking, provided for in section 58 of Law No. 8204, does not absorb that corresponding to money laundering, since the latter punishes the active subject, among other aspects, for altering the socioeconomic order, through the introduction of capital that has an illicit activity as its origin. But in addition to that, we are not faced with an apparent concurrence of norms, because in the case under examination, despite a partial phenomenal coincidence in the activity that constitutes the factual basis for the conviction for both crimes (the acts of exhausting the predicate offense are in turn constitutive of money laundering (legitimación de capitales)), there is no unity of action (unidad de acción) in a legal sense. On this point, it has been indicated: «To determine when we are faced with one or several actions in a legal sense, different factors must be taken into account: 1) The author's plan; 2) Normative; 3) Spatio-temporal proximity. In the event that we find ourselves before a single action in a legal sense, a single crime would be configured (single infraction), an apparent concurrence (or concurrence of laws), or indeed, an ideal concurrence (concurso ideal). So provides our Penal Code when indicating, in its Article 21: “There is an ideal concurrence (concurso ideal) when with a single action or omission various legal provisions that are not mutually exclusive are violated”; while the regulation of the apparent concurrence of norms (also called concurrence of laws in the doctrine) is provided for in Article 23 of the same code. The plurality of actions in a legal sense gives rise to the possibility of a material concurrence (concurso material), or continued crime (which is a subcategory of the latter). Section 22 of the Penal Code indicates: “There is a material concurrence (concurso material) when the same agent separately or jointly commits several crimes” (Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, ruling no. 2020-301 of 12:30 p.m. on March 20, 2020). In the present case, there is neither unity of action (unidad de acción) from a legal point of view, nor is the will of the accused, to provide essential collaboration to the criminal group by concealing the fruit of drug trafficking and recruiting people for its transformation, unitarily assessed at a normative level. For this reason, this appellate court considers that we are faced with a material concurrence (concurso material) of both illicit acts. Thus, the partial coincidence in time and space of the factual platform serving as the basis for the conviction for one and the other figure, is not sufficient to consider that we are faced with a unity of action (unidad de acción) in a legal sense. By virtue of the foregoing, the first ground of the challenge filed personally by [Name 026] is declared without merit, as well as the second objection of the appeal formulated by licensed attorney Solórzano Hernández.\n\nThird ground of the appeal filed personally by [Name 026]. She alleges «Disagreement with the determination of the sentence». The appellant claims that section 71 of the Penal Code requires the judge to consider the subjective and objective aspects of the accused person and the crime when establishing the sentence, including the provisions of subsections a) and g) of the aforementioned norm. She points out, however, that the court did not analyze the socioeconomic or personal condition of [Name 026]. In this sense, she argues that her conditions of vulnerability, such as poverty and a low level of schooling, were not weighed, which produces the ineffectiveness of the act of determination of the sentence. She argues as a grievance that, by not analyzing mandatory aspects for the imposition of the punitive quantum, it is not possible to control that extreme of the decision. She requests the annulment of the sentence and a remand for a new trial. For the reasons that will be stated, the ground is partially declared with merit. This Chamber observes that the lower court (a quo) set forth an identical reasoning to justify the sentence, for both the crime of drug trafficking and that of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), as detailed below: «Regarding [Name 026], it is individually assessed and it is highly reprehensible that she used her home for the storage of money from the drug trafficking carried out by the criminal organization, taking advantage of the private nature that her dwelling held; likewise, it is highly reprehensible that she followed in the footsteps of her romantic partner [Name 029] to join the criminal organization. Regarding personal conditions in her favor, it is assessed that she is a young person of 30 years of age and has a clean criminal record, which prevents the court from increasing the imposed sentence» (cf. f. 988 and 994 of the judgment). Based on the above (supra), the trial court opted to impose the amount of 10 years of imprisonment for each of the crimes, which total 20 years of prison time. As a first clarification, it must be noted that the minimum sentence provided for in section 69 of Law No. 8204 for the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is 10 years of imprisonment, when the predicate offense is drug trafficking. By virtue of the foregoing, although the reasoning is limited and deficient —as will be discussed later—, the imposition of the minimum extreme —in principle— implies that no grievance is generated for the justiciable person. However, the defense argues that the conditions of vulnerability of the accused, derived from her low level of schooling and situation of poverty, were not considered. Although she does not express it literally, she seems to allude to Article 72 of the Penal Code, which allows the court to impose a sanction below the legal minimum, when such circumstances influence the commission of the illicit act. However, this Chamber notes that a request in that sense was not formulated in the trial conclusions, and the parties also did not provide the lower court (a quo) with elements that would allow it to carry out such a weighing. With the foregoing, this Court does not intend to attribute the burden of proof to the defense, which would be contrary to principles of supra-legal rank; however, to carry out an assessment of that nature, the trial court must have inputs arising from the oral and public debate, which is lacking in this case. Given this panorama, although it would have been desirable for the trial court to make a statement in this sense, the truth is that it is also not possible to question it for not having assessed the possibility of assigning a lesser sentence, when it did not have inputs and there was also no express request from the interested party. It is necessary to emphasize that the imposition of a sentence below the minimum due to the existence of conditions of vulnerability in the accused person must inevitably be preceded by proof of the influence this had on the commission of the crime, which is why the active role of the parties in the adversarial process is necessary to demonstrate that connection before the court, and in this case, no efforts in that sense are noted. By virtue of the foregoing, it is decided unanimously that the complaint cannot prosper with regard to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). A different scenario arises with the crime of drug trafficking, whose sanction was set at 2 years above the minimum extreme, without said increase being adequately justified, in the opinion of the majority of this Chamber. As has been noted in different sections of this pronouncement, the imposition of the sanction, being the moment in which the exercise of the State's punitive power becomes effective, must be preceded by adequate reasoning that expresses a meticulous analysis of the parameters provided by the legislator in section 71 of the Penal Code, as well as the expression of the reasons why the fixed quantum is reasonable and proportional, in light of the circumstances of the case and the personal conditions of the accused person. On this point, the Third Chamber, in resolution 2012244, of 10:38 a.m. on February 17, 2012, indicated: «The justification of the sentence must effectively be composed of the analysis of the subjective and objective conditions of the facts, the intensity and magnitude of their implications, as well as the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.\n\nIn relation to the latter, this Chamber has held the criterion of their importance, particularly when determining in the judgment the amount of the sentence to be imposed; in this regard, in ruling 0314-2010 of 08:55 hours on April 30, 2010, issued by this Chamber, the jurisprudential criterion was reiterated, according to which: “The setting of the criminal sanction not only requires dwelling on the analysis of the aspects contained in the referred Article 71 but also resorting to parameters of proportionality and reasonableness in order to endow the imposition of the sentence with valid content, because that moment turns out to be precisely the high point within the jurisdictional task in our criminal system, the moment in which the exercise of the ius puniendi is individualized and concretized. It is a constitutionally protected right that the accused clearly knows the reasons why the State decides to apply a custodial sentence, as well as the reasons why the quantum set for the application of said sanction is reasonable and proportional to the degree of reproach.” […] the dimension of the judgment of reproach, anticipated by the legislator in the minimum and maximum extremes of the established sentence, must be carried out within those margins and adhering to the guidelines of numeral 71 of the Penal Code. Normative culpability obliges the judge to assess the circumstances surrounding the agent at the time of the act, to establish whether the legal system could—under the specific circumstances—require with greater or lesser severity an action in accordance with the law, and thus, the more demandable, the more reproachable, and conversely, the less demandable, the less reproachable. Culpability is nothing other than the reproach for acting with clear awareness of the unlawfulness of the act being performed, together with the breach of the law and with society—without insurmountable physical risk and without insurmountable psychological pressure—in circumstances suitable for acting correctly. It is a conscious choice, where the subject inclines towards the violation of the norm despite having been able to act in accordance with the law.” In the case at hand, the trial court, in a generic manner, alludes to the use of the defendant's home as the site of commission of the crime and to her following her husband's steps to participate in the criminal organization; however, due to the limited reasoning, it is not possible to determine why these circumstances justify a greater reproach. This Chamber is not unaware that the events took place within the heart of a criminal organization and that the accused agreed to actively participate in the illicit activity at a crucial phase, properly when securing the enjoyment of the profits was sought; however, the setting of the sanction, as well as its basis, is the exclusive province of the trial court and it would not be possible to uphold the decision in any other way than by substituting its function and completing in this forum the reasoning that would be necessary to deem the sanction well justified. What has been able to be verified, and is so declared by majority, is that the reasoning of the sanction is limited and deficient, reason for which it is necessary to uphold the ground, although for reasons different from those set forth by the appealing party. Based on the foregoing, by majority vote, the complaint is declared partially granted; consequently, the sanction imposed is annulled only with regard to the crime of drug trafficking and the matter is remanded for trial for a new substantiation of this point, an opportunity in which the principle of no reformatio in peius must be observed. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. With respect to the sentence set for the illicit act of money laundering, the ground is unanimously declared without merit.-\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With marked respect, I separate myself from the majority decision of this *ad quem* chamber, and for the reasons I set forth below, I declare without merit the appeal of the defendant [Name 026] with respect to the crime of drug trafficking. As indicated in Considerando XIV, the complaint regarding the reasoning of the sentence was unanimously declared without merit, only with respect to the crime of money laundering; reason for which this dissenting vote refers, as I indicated, only to the reasoning of the sanction that the court imposed on [Name 026] for the illicit act of drug trafficking. Contrary to what the appealing defendant claims, I consider that the judgment did adequately state the reasons for the sentence of ten years of imprisonment for the crime of drug trafficking. In Considerando Seven, letter A of the decision, the *a quo* set forth a graduation of sentences that, from my point of view, constitutes a clear individualization of the sanctions for all the convicted persons, because the individual reproach was equated with the level that each defendant occupied in the pyramidal structure of the criminal organization. This is reasonable and adequate, because the judgment made clear what the functions of each accused were in the context of the common plan and the proven division of functions, in order to understand the placement of each one in the framework of the criminal group. Thus, it is evident that the increases in sentences respond to those specific contributions of the convicted persons, which justifies, in my opinion, that, for example, the leader is the one who receives the most severe sanction – set by the court at twenty years of imprisonment –, followed by the others based on their proximity to the top of the organization. In a staggered manner, the ruling adjusted the sentences corresponding to the degree of reproach of the convicted persons, among them [Name 026], who was placed in a link closer to the base of the pyramid, reason for which she only received an increase of two years of imprisonment above the statutory minimum – which is eight years. This person was convicted for a crime of drug trafficking and also for an illicit act of money laundering, committed in the context of her participation, as a co-perpetrator, within a very well-structured criminal organization with a very stable survival over time. Thus, from my point of view, it is reasonable that there are similarities in the reasoning of the reproach for both offenses, because both crimes had as a common factor the existence of the same criminal network, but they were also committed according to the special position that [Name 026] held within it. Therefore, it is not an error of the judgment that, when dimensioning the degree of culpability of the defendant for both crimes, the characteristics of her location in the hierarchy of the criminal organization were weighed, as well as the logistical environment from which she acted, for it is reasonable that, when setting the sanction for the two illicit acts committed by [Name 026], the court assessed the physical and personal assets that, as a member of the criminal structure, were certainly the same ones employed to commit both crimes. Upon reviewing the ruling, specifically from page 986 onward, it can be determined that, regarding the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking, the decision-making body made it clear that [Name 026] acted with excess in relation to the elements of the criminal type, which reflects that, by making visible that greater degree of culpability, the sanction should also be greater, which I deem correct since the sentence must be just and proportional, as the trial court well determined. Specifically, the *a quo* reproached [Name 026] for having participated as a co-perpetrator in a large criminal structure, for the number of its members and its duration over time certainly stand as factors that place public health in greater danger, compared to other smaller structures and of lesser duration over time. In this regard, I consider it in keeping with common sense to affirm that, in view of the legal interest, the drug trafficking organizations that are larger and more stable traffic larger quantities of drugs and also obtain greater profits, from which it can be affirmed along with the court of merit, in my opinion, that the increase of two years of imprisonment above the legal minimum is justified by these factors in consideration of the greater danger to public health. Along the same line, the judgment also rebuked [Name 026] for having taken advantage of the privacy of her home to collude with the criminal network and to do her part of the work there in accordance with the consensual division of functions, just as she was reproached for acting under the support of her sentimental partner [Name 029], who was also an active member of the criminal group, but much closer to the top, and who, it is worth remembering, was given a greater sanction than [Name 026] precisely because his higher position in the hierarchical structure was due to his enormous contributions to the criminal enterprise and, consequently, the *quantum* of his sentence – twelve years – was equated to his degree of culpability. In sum, the specific factors of [Name 026]'s situation, expressly assessed by the court, do allow an understanding of her degree of culpability in the commission of the crime of drug trafficking and, in my opinion, justify the increase of two years of imprisonment over the base amount of eight set by criminal law.\n\nI do not omit to note that the judgment also contained the increase, considering that [Name 026] is a young person – thirty years old at the time of trial – and without a criminal record, hence I am of the opinion that the reasoning for his sentence did conform to the legal duty to state grounds, thus opting to vote to dismiss this aspect of his challenge.-\n\n15. First ground of appeal filed by master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Name 013], [Name 022], and [Name 015]. He alleges \"Disagreement with the assessment of evidence, lack of analytical and intellectual grounds, violation of the rules of sound rational criticism, and breach of the principle of impartial judge\". He indicates that the a quo granted absolute preeminence to the prosecution's evidence, without carrying out a balanced analysis of the totality of the evidentiary body, thereby incurring a biased assessment that harms the principle of impartiality. He adds that an arbitrary selection of evidentiary means was made, by omitting, within the judgment, substantial parts of the testimonies that benefited his clients. He states that the assessment carried out by the trial court was directed solely to favor the Public Prosecutor's Office; furthermore, extremely serious errors by the prosecuting entity were resolved. He points out, as a preamble, that the dates on which the facts would have taken place are described in points 4.13 to 4.16 of the accusation. He emphasizes that, from folio 245 onwards, his clients were mentioned as members of a criminal structure, whose function was described \"generically, globalizing circumstances of each one\". He argues that the judgment details various tasks under the charge of his clients, such as distribution of drug caches, collection of money derived from drug trafficking activity, storage and custody of drug caches, money and weapons. He outlines that from folio 286 onwards, mention is made that his clients carried out various acts detailed from point 4.13 to 4.16. He questions that in point 4.13, various conducts were alluded to in a general manner, without justifying situations of time, place and manner; in addition to covering a considerable period of approximately two years. He denounces that, from folio 4.14, after analyzing the accusation and the evidence, he verifies that none of the witnesses stated that on November 21, 2019, any drug seizure was obtained, which is why unequivocally, it is not possible to determine that on that date ([Name 013] and [Name 015] stored a cache of narcotics. He argues that, based on the information provided by the witnesses and the evidence contained in the case file, there can be no certainty of what was set forth by the prosecutorial representation, because the only thing available is an equivocal (anfibológico) indication, which is the wiretap, which consists of a conversation without any type of materialization. He asserts that only mere police syllogisms exist, based on the content of the wiretaps, as stated by witnesses [Name 093] and [Name 092], who stated that, against his clients, for that event, there were only wiretaps and that no materialization of narcotics occurred that allows arriving at a state of certainty. He argues that this indication is equivocal (anfibológico). He accuses that the judgment presents ambiguities and gaps, which cannot generate a detriment to his clients, because, according to point 4.14 of the accusation, these \"possessed and stored a cache of narcotics\", without stating what type, despite the breadth of the term, nor the quantity. He considers that the a quo carried out a biased assessment of the evidence, did not apply sound criticism, the testimonies contain police syllogisms, the cross-examination carried out by the defense was not taken into account, despite the fact that, from the questions asked, it is concluded that there was no seizure of illicit substances. As a grievance, he highlights that the lack of intellectual reasoning, in the analysis of the documentary and testimonial evidence, led to an illegitimate conclusion contrary to the principle of derivation, consequently, a sentence was imposed that harms their personal freedom. He requests that his clients be acquitted or, failing that, that a retrial be ordered. Additionally, that the cessation of pretrial detention be ordered, because it was ordered as a consequence of the judgment. Second ground of appeal filed by master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Name 013], [Name 022], and [Name 015]. He claims \"Disagreement with the factual determination due to violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment\". He accuses that within the intellectual grounds, facts and dynamics not contained in the accusatory instrument were taken as proven and used within the analysis, which is harmful to the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment. He transcribes facts 4.13 to 4.16 of the prosecutorial accusation, then indicates that sections 4.13 and 4.14 maintained their original wording, while 4.15 and 4.16 were adjusted regarding the dates. He considers that arbitrarily and without justification, the court harmed the right of the accused, due to the lack of assessment of the existing evidence, by concluding that the facts occurred in the year 2019 and not as set forth in the accused factual framework, which alludes to the year 2020. He accuses that the variation in dates violates the right of defense of his clients, because it could be determined, through the wiretaps, \"that in tome XVI of the wiretap file at folios 5274 to folio 5332 where the dates of May 2020 are observed and in the same tome XVI at folios 5354 to 5365 of the month of June of the year 2020, where no calls are observed nor are there wiretaps that can mention the facts described in the accusation\" [sic]. He adds that there are no seizures against his clients or third parties, nor controlled purchases that would give a trace of a possible crime and that would allow accrediting, as facts 4.15 and 4.16 indicate, that the accused possessed 2 kg of drugs or that they guarded and/or stored a drug cache on June 13, 2020. He states that the prosecutor did not correct the dates of the alluded facts and despite this, the court made the modification. He affirms that the variation of the dates was carried out in order to obtain minimal equivocal (anfibológicos) indications, which allowed accrediting an illicit act. He reiterates that drugs were never mentioned in the wiretaps and only police syllogisms are available. He considers that the variation made to the dates demonstrates that the court was biased, because for the accused period there were no indications of an illicit activity. He maintains that what occurred cannot be seen as a simple material error and, even in that case, the correction should have been requested by the Public Prosecutor's Office.\n\nHe emphasizes that no drugs were seized from his clients during the investigation, nor in the raids carried out, consequently, there is no evidence of the crime of storage. As a grievance, he denounces that his clients were convicted, despite the lack of details about the circumstances of time, manner and place of the facts, coupled with the fact that what is charged does not coincide with what was proven. He requests that the ground be granted and an acquittal judgment be issued in favor of his clients. In the alternative, that a retrial be ordered. Furthermore, he requires the freedom of his clients, because the precautionary measure of pretrial detention was ordered as a consequence of the conviction judgment. The claims are dismissed. Having analyzed the defense's allegations, in which they question the declaration of criminal responsibility of their clients for the crime of drug trafficking, this Chamber concludes that, even though they are partially right, it is not appropriate to grant the grounds. To begin the analysis, it is necessary to outline the proven facts that relate to said illicit act: \"1.\n\nIn the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money derived from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: The storage and dosing of drug shipments acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of shipments to the various points of sale. The sale of drug shipments owned by the criminal group to other narco-gangs based within the national territory. The sale of drug shipments owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug addicts, through properties held by the organization for \"Bunker\"-type purposes, as well as on the public thoroughfares of the zones under control of the organization. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for that purpose the employment of various means to that end. 3. This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so that each of its members performed specific functions, all under a single direction, the sale of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they exercised the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows: […] [Nombre 013]: a member of the criminal group, who was one of the trusted persons of leader [Nombre 001], who was responsible, among other functions, for ensuring the latter's personal security, as well as carrying out custody tasks for the drug transports executed by the criminal group; he was also one of those responsible for transmitting to the remaining members of the organization the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001]; on behalf of the latter, he supervised and carried out personally the collection and storage of the monies obtained from the drug trafficking activity, for which purpose he used a property belonging to his mother as a \"warehouse\" or storage center for the illicit supplies of the criminal organization.\n\n**[Name 022]**: member of the criminal group, who, in association with the accused ([Name 013]), was responsible, among other functions, for his personal security, as well as carrying out custody duties for the drug transports executed by the criminal group; he was also another of those responsible for transmitting the orders and directives issued by [Name 001] to the remaining members of the organization; under the direction and supervision of the leader, he carried out the collection and storage of the money obtained from the drug trafficking activity […] **[Name 015]**: member of the narco structure, who, among other functions, was responsible for providing support in the tasks assigned by the criminal leader to the accused [Name 004] and [Name 022], primarily in the distribution of drug shipments and the collection of money derived from the activity of drug trafficking; he was also one of the persons designated in the organization to store and guard, in his home, supplies belonging to the organization, primarily drug shipments, money, and weapons […] 4.13 As part of the distribution of functions among the members of the criminal group, the group's hierarchy allowed, in the period of 2018 and until the month of October 2020, members of the criminal organization to carry out various functions aimed at the possession and storage of supplies ranging from drugs, money, and firearms; said actions were delegated by the leader of the criminal group [Name 001] to the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], and for such purposes they used the home located in [...], and for this storage action the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.14 On November 21, 2019, the accused ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the drug possession and storage functions that they carried out for the criminal group, held under their possession and storage a shipment of narcotics, which was destined for commercialization with third parties, clients of the criminal organization they formed. 4.15 On May 19, 2019, the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed and stored at least two kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, in the property located in the home situated at [...], a drug that was destined for sale to third parties. 4.16 On June 13, 2019, the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed, guarded, and stored a shipment of narcotics in the property located in the home situated at [...], a drug that was destined for sale to third parties […] 6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, the raids, searches, and seizures were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the detention of the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the accused acts and which are set out below […] 6.6 Regarding the result of the raids, searches, and seizures carried out in the property located at [...], a home used by the accused [Name 022], [Name 015] and ([Name 013]) as a domicile and collection center for weapons, drugs, and money, products of drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, black color, IMEI number 866223030330196, SIM card with no visible brand with number 8950604402808424655 and a Samsung brand micro SD card. Used for the development of criminal activity. • A Samsung brand cell phone, blue color, with IMEI number 357716087681490, with a white SIM card with no visible brand with number 8950604401712850476F and an 8GB black micro SD card. Used for the development of criminal activity.\n\n• Photographically documented: a Glock brand firearm case with adhesive tape where the name [Name 022] is observed; the weapon model is a Glock 17 caliber 9x19 serial number BEZC912.\n• Photographically documented: eight intercom radios with six earpiece bases and chargers.\n• Photographically documented: a bulletproof vest with no visible brand or serial number.\n• Photographically documented: a Banco Nacional digital signature card in the name of [Name 022] and three weapon carry permits in the name of [Name 022].\n• Photographically documented: a firearm case, brand Glock, model Glock 17 caliber 9x19 serial number BMKC172.\n• A black signaling device with the legend \"4T-006\" serial number 021635 with its respective charger, five antennas, and a vehicle power charger all inside a case.\n• A bank deposit receipt for 354,600 colones, depositor [Name 022], document number 14121040. A dollar purchase receipt for $600, colones to be paid 354,600, document number 14105387.\n• A pistol-type firearm, brand Beretta, serial number filed down with a die-stamped number 666 on the barrel portion, with a black magazine containing 15 unfired 9mm caliber rounds.\n• Three hundred eighty-nine unfired 7.62 x 39 caliber rounds.\n• A black pistol-type firearm, caliber 9x19, brand Taurus serial number TF056301, with a black magazine and 16 unfired 9mm caliber rounds.\n• A black pistol-type firearm, caliber 9x19, brand Glock serial number PFA677, with a black magazine with a capacity of 16 rounds, and two black magazines each with a capacity of 30 rounds containing 21 unfired 9x19 caliber rounds.\n• A black pistol-type firearm, caliber 9mm, brand Beretta serial number 1108590, a black magazine for 15 rounds with 15 unfired rounds, and a sound suppressor.\n• Three hundred twenty unfired 5.56 caliber rounds, 3 magazines, and one magazine with extended capacity.\n• A magazine for a .40 caliber pistol with a capacity of 28 rounds, containing 13 unfired .40 caliber rounds.\n• A steel plate or die with a pattern of circles on the lower part.\n• Five hundred twenty-dollar United States bills for a total of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars), money that was the product of the criminal activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be inserted into the national financial market and that was stored in that property by the defendants [Name 022], [Name 015] and ([Name 013])» [sic] (cfr. pp. 276 to 311 of the judgment). From the transcribed facts which, it is worth noting, coincide with those charged by the Public Prosecutor's Office —except in points 4.15 and 4.16, where the year 2020 was changed to 2019— several actions attributed to the three defendants are apparent, namely: to [Name 022], alias «[Name 123]»: (i) personal security for [Name 001] (fact 3), (ii) relaying orders and directives from [Name 001] to other members of the structure (fact 3), (iii) possession and storage of weapons (facts 4.13, 6.6), (iv) possession, collection, and storage of money (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6), (v) custody during drug transports (fact 3) and (vi) possession and storage of drugs (facts 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16); to ([Name 013]), alias «[Name 124]»: (i) personal security for [Name 001] (fact 3), (ii) relaying orders and directives from ([Name 001]) to other members of the structure (fact 3), (iii) stockpiling of weapons (facts 3, 4.13, 6.6); (iv) collection and storage of money (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6); (v) custody during drug transports (fact 3) and (vi) possession and storage of drugs (facts 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16); and to [Name 015]: (i) providing support to her children [Name 004] and [Name 022], in the functions entrusted to them (fact 3); (ii) possession, storage, and custody of weapons (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6); (iii) possession, storage, and collection of money derived from drug trafficking activity (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6); (iv) possession, storage, and distribution of drug caches (facts 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16). Specifically, the defense considers that the activity of possession, storage, and distribution of drugs was not duly accredited. Although some of the conduct described in the accusation was not duly accredited, it is not possible to share the defense's thesis. The judgment carries out an extensive analysis of the link between [Name 015], [Name 022] and ([Name 013]), with the criminal organization led by [Name 001], emphasizing the multiplicity of functions they performed. This Tribunal agrees with the a quo that this link is clearly established based on the evidence adduced in the adversarial proceedings, which consisted mainly of a significant number of police reports, the testimony of the officers in charge of the investigation, the result of the telephone intercepts, and the findings obtained in the raid. The events of interest consist of those described in points 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 of the statement of facts, which detail drug storage activities by the defendants, temporally located on November 21, May 19, and June 13, all in 2019 respectively — according to the correction made by the trial court —. Upon conducting a comprehensive review of the judgment and evaluating the way in which the trial court assessed the evidence, this Chamber notes that only one of those three events is duly proven, specifically the one located on May 19, 2019, as will be detailed further below. Regarding the fact described in point 4.14, dated November 21, 2019, the a quo stated: «Having clearly established the active participation within the criminal group of [Name 013], [Name 022] and [Name 015], it was charged and is considered proven that on November 21, 2019, the defendants ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the drug possession and storage functions they performed for the criminal group, kept a cache of narcotics in their possession and under storage, which was destined for commercialization with third parties, clients of the criminal organization they formed. To reach this degree of certainty, the following call was available: “From [Value 079]. Call identified with sequence number 0319985. The intervened telephone right maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 079]. This call was made at 11:42 hours on November 21, 2019.\n\n[Name 015] alias “[Name 125]” made a call to ([Name 013]) alias “[Name 124]”, user of right [Value 079]. [Name 015] said- listen son, [Name 004] said – uh-huh, [Name 015] said – it’s half of the cajeta right, [Name 004] said uh-huh yes, [Name 015] said- oh okay so you know, [Name 004] said – well, [Name 128] – well so be careful, [Name 004] said – well”. It is more than evident that [Name 015], being at the residence and having custody of the drug, talks with his son [Name 013] and they come to confirm that what is being kept in custody is half of a cajeta, which obviously refers to drugs. It must not be forgotten that at the residence where [Name 015] lived, sweets or cajetas were never processed but rather what was occurring was the storage of drugs as reflected by the call» [sic] (cf. folios 555 to 556 of the judgment). This Chamber differs from the analysis carried out by the trial court, since the call, even analyzed in relation to the rest of the evidentiary elements concerning the accused, is not so clear and express, and therefore it is not suitable for deriving that at the time it occurred, the accused persons were storing drugs in their home. Although the term «cajeta» is usually used in drug trafficking slang to refer to compact portions of drugs, the truth is that it involves an interpretation of the content of the communication, which becomes equivocal, if the information cannot be corroborated by other means. Note that, apart from the use of the word «cajeta», the communication transcribed above does not provide additional elements or references that would allow one to reasonably establish or infer an action of storing or trafficking drugs carried out by [Name 015] and his son [Name 013] on the date the communication occurred. From the analysis of the evidence, it is not verified that, beyond the content of the referred communication, any other information was assessed that would allow giving truthfulness to the interpretation made of it. Furthermore, no reference is made in the communication about the location where that «cajeta» would be situated, nor what was done with it, so as to be able to affirm that it was being commercialized from the home of the defendants with a third party. It cannot be considered an inference derived from the analyzed circumstantial evidence, but rather it actually takes the form of a presumption, which in this context may or may not be true, and therefore doubt persists about that event. Different is the circumstance presented by the fact derived from point 4.15, located on May 19, 2019. Regarding this, the trial court stated: «Having indicated the above, they were accused and it was demonstrated that on May 19, 2019, the defendants [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the duties delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed and stored at least two kilograms of cocaine hydrochloride, in the property located at the home situated in [...], a drug that was intended for sale to third parties; the following call served as individuating evidentiary support for the conduct: “From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0113193. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 21:52 hours on May 19, 2019. [Name 124] spoke with [Name 123], [Name 123] said – hello, [Name 124] said – man, [Name 123] said - what?, [Name 124] said - how many babies are in the House?, [Name 123] said – uh, two, [Name 124] said - two?, [Name 123] said – yes, [Name 124] said - are you sure?, [Name 123] said – well yes dumbass because he hasn’t taken out anything else right?, [Name 124] said – uh-huh, [Name 123] said - are you at the house?, [Name 124] said – no, here, [Name 123] said – haaa, and is someone opening the tube?, [Name 124] said – pissing, well, I’m going to check now, [Name 123] said – two, two two two but look, they are in the old drawer in the TV, [Name 124] said – oh okay okay, [Name 123] said – two if there are. Communication ends”. Based on the context that has been analyzed, it is clear that at the time of the call, both [Name 004] and [Name 022] are not at their home, given that they are performing the tasks entrusted by the leader of the organization for its operation, but in the home where both lived with their mother, two “babies” were stored, a term already analyzed that refers to packages of drugs; on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that in the home, the one who remained was [Name 015] performing the custodial duties of the drug stored there, as has been so evidenced during the previous calls, as well as the one at hand and even more so with the one that accredited the events of June 13, which is the call that will be analyzed next. Their home, referred to in the accusation, was the same home raided and in which evidence was located that credited with certainty their participation within the criminal group» [sic] (cf. folios 531 to 532 of the judgment). This Chamber agrees that the term «babies» was one of those used by the members of the criminal organization to refer to drugs, specifically kilograms of cocaine, as was established based on the drug transports carried out by [Name 029] for supply to the criminal organizations investigated in preliminary cases 18-000017-1219-PE and 19-014179-0042-PE —as detailed in considerando X, to which reference is made for its reading—, so it is possible to infer that it is that illicit object that the defendants refer to in the conversation. The foregoing is relevant because three days before that communication, that is, on May 16, 2019, one of the transports and drug supplies attributed to [Name 029] occurred, specifically in the Aserrí sector, vicinity of the cemetery, processed under preliminary case number 19-014179-0042-PE, which resulted in the seizure from a third party of 2521 wrappers with fragments of cocaine and the raid of a home in which more than 2 kilograms of cocaine were also found, which occurred the following day, that is, on May 17, 2019. Because the use of the term «babies» or «babys» was fully corroborated as a form of coded language to allude to drugs, specifically cocaine, used by ([Name 004]), it makes complete sense that this term was also used by other members of the criminal organization to identify that illicit material. The relationship of [Name 022] and ([Name 013]) with [Name 029] was fully established, as a result of the telephone interceptions and surveillances carried out by the judicial police, since even from the beginning of the investigation the three subjects were involved in security and custodial duties for [Name 001], which evidenced the coordination existing among them —this point will be further elaborated on later—, so it is possible to infer that, in the transcribed communication, they are indeed referring to drugs, cocaine type. Added to the above is the information provided in the hearing by the judicial investigator [Name 092], who directed the investigations against this criminal organization. \n\nFrom the testimony of said official, the court a quo transcribed a passage of the statement, with the following information: “What the investigator in charge, [Name 092], stated during the debate cannot be overlooked, regarding the investigative steps carried out: ‘[Name 029] told alias [Name 123] [Name 022] to take this, so [Name 123] asked him if the mission fai, if the mission had failed, to which [Name 029] told him yes, evidencing that the delivery could not be made on the 18th due to the police operation carried out by us; furthermore, on May 19th, according to the criminal judge’s recordings, a communication took place between [Name 022] and [Name 004], where [Name 004] asked [Name 022] how many babies were left in the house, to which [Name 123] told him that 2 were left, and even indicated that they were the ones under the TV on the stand.’” [sic] (cfr. folios 558 to 556 of the judgment). In the exercise of comprehensive review of the decision and the judgment, this Chamber verified the existence of the communication, which was generated on May 18, 2019, and corresponds to sequence 0047855, from telephone line [Value 077], at 00:37 hours, with the following content: “[Name 083] spoke with [Name 123]; [Name 083] said — mae come here a sec; [Name 123] said — I’m coming, where bro?; [Name 083] said — say here to the car bro so he can take that stuff; [Name 123] said — didn’t mission fail?; [Name 083] said — yes; [Name 123] said — ok ok why don’t you bring it to my pad? Communication ends.” (cfr. folios 556 to 557 of the investigative file). From this communication, it follows that [Name 029] asked [Name 022] to remove something he was transporting in his car, and the latter asked him to take it to his residence. Let us recall that [Name 029] was observed by the judicial police in the vehicle with license plate [Value 068] at the time it was possible to determine that he was transporting drugs to other organizations, including the event of May 16, 2019, in the Aserrí area, and which triggered the entire police deployment that led to the search of the dwelling where the delivery was made on May 17, 2019, so it is entirely logical that he would momentarily cease carrying out activities of the same nature and would dispose of any illicit material that could compromise him, by handing it over into the custody of other members of the organization. In this scenario, the communication held the following day between the brothers ([Name 013]) makes total sense, when [Name 004] asks [Name 022] how many “babies” were in the house at that moment, since it was [Name 022] who had received the delivery the day before from [Name 029], which allowed him to detail to his brother the exact location, in an old drawer under the TV. This information must necessarily be correlated with the communication that was taken into account to deem point 4.16 of the accusation proven, which was generated on June 13, 2019, and has the following content: “From [Value 087]. Call identified with sequence number 0360925. The intercepted telephone subscriber communicates with the user of the telephone service [Value 103].”\n\nThis call was made at 5:09 p.m. on the 13th day of June 2019. [Name 022] alias “[Name 123]” spoke with “[Name 125]”, [Name 125] told him – [Name 022], [Name 123] told him – that, [Name 125] told him – papi you know I already investigated how the situation was with those men, [Name 123] told him with whom, [Name 125] told him with the ones who jumped onto the roof, [Name 123] told him – I don't know what the deal is, [Name 125] told him – it was lapicito and some young guy who also lives right around there, [Name 123] told him – who, [Name 125] told him – it was [Name 257], [Name 257] the thing was he arrived and told [Name 159] to calm down but he was going to kill her dog, because [Name 159] was the one who told me “look [Name 015] it was people from [Name 153]” she tells me, from [Name 153] I don't think so I told him, [Name 123] told him – uh-huh, [Name 125] told him – and she told me yes it was lapicito and some young guy who rides around on a red motorcycle she tells me but the other [Name 181] I don't know who he is but she says yes that he hangs around a lot with [Name 010] that [Name 181], [Name 123] told him – and what was the deal, [Name 125] told him – and the deal is that the one who let them jump around there because they had the law behind them was [Name 012] the tarzan chick this [Name 012] the one from behind where we live and that was the same day there was the problem and that was at five in the afternoon, that was when the shots starting being heard up here, [Name 123] told him – uh-huh, uh-huh, [Name 125] told him – you remember they started shooting and what not and so well Mrs. [Name 074] says no that they wrecked her place that they caved in her roof, and [Name 159] says that yes she saw them and that the guy arrived and that he was going to kill the dog so it wouldn't bite him she says hey what, and that he tells her calm down mae eat quietly mae because I work for [Name 153] and that, and what can you do, and so then she tells him no papi you were bluffing, you aren't with that guy, do you think one is an idiot, so these people say that they are all riled up, what they tell me is that why don't I go and stand up and why don't I talk to that guy to tell this guy, [Name 123] told him – don't you get involved in anything, [Name 125] told him – man no it's just that you know what the thing is, in a way yes I would talk but it's for us for my house because I'm going to tell you something, just as, [Name 123] told him – but wait I already spoke, I already told him, I already spoke with him, I didn't know who the guys were but I already spoke and he already gave me the green light that's all, [Name 125] told him – well, well if it's a green light now what you have to tell him, tell him it was lapicito and that lapicito used his name, that's why the old man came here angry to tell me that whenever someone uses that man's name, [Name 123] told him – mami dude stop saying that I tell things to him, nothing to do with it, just leave it now I am going to tell him look mae they told me that well yes, and I got all worked up there at the place and all that stuff, and next time let me know, that's all I'm going to tell him, [Name 125] told him – and another thing, and another thing, [Name 123] told him – another what, [Name 125] told him – that's what he told me that I don't know what, [Name 123] told him – that I am going to screw over that guy [Name 257] and I am going to say it next time let me know because I was worked up about the place and well yes I say yes if some son of a bitch comes in here I'll put a bullet in him, next time let me know, [Name 125] told him – no don't say let me know because no you can't be doing that because the poor old lady had an attack and almost died, [Name 123] told him – yes, yes but you stop getting involved in stuff, if someone has to be telling them something let it be those people, [Name 125] told him – no, no the only thing I tell you is, they have to watch my entrance for me and if my entrance which is out back no one is going to watch for me then they'd better just screw me over, because I'm going to tell you one thing little daddy yes if I don't watch my own ass no one watches it for me, if we don't watch out for ourselves no one watches out for us just like this piece of a son of a bitch and also the other son of a bitch lend themselves to that kind of shit so easily they come in to rob us by lending themselves because as they know there's money here that they lend themselves and they just come in while one sleeps just because out back there there isn't a security, [Name 123]\n\n– mommy but if you are going to talk to me, speak properly, stop saying stupid things on the phone, [Name 125] said – I'm not saying anything serious, nothing serious I'm saying, [Name 123] said – nothing serious, look, stop saying idiotic things, if not, don't even call me, I just spoke, just that, mommy, just stay quiet, stop being annoying, I already spoke, [Name 125] said – then look, I'm also going to have to go and speak the truth and better so, [Name 123] said – what do you have to come and talk about, [Name 125] said – no then I legally, since you spoke and you don't give a damn, I'm going to have to go, [Name 123] said – that you don't give a damn, I already spoke, I already told you and he already gave me the green light, just that, [Name 125] said – yes green light, according to you he's going to break that great gentleman who is a daddy to him, oh please [Name 022] amazes me, amazes me to know that according to you, that dude knowing that it was this dude and that it was another one of his guys, you know he's not going to do anything to him, rather, welcome they are, [Name 123] said – mommy if you're going to call me, call me and get serious, stop saying nonsense, [Name 125] said – okay, okay – Communication ends» [sic] (cfr.\n\n(folios 541 to 544 of the judgment). Regarding this communication, it is necessary to point out that this Chamber does not agree with the interpretation made by the trial court, in the sense that it is possible to infer that on the date it occurred, [Name 015] and his children were storing drugs for the organization, because the rules of experience indicate that in the slang used by persons involved in criminal activities of this nature, the term \"galeta\" has various meanings, as it can refer both to a stash of drugs and to a site used for its storage. The communication is not sufficiently clear or unequivocal to derive that, at that moment, drugs were stored in the dwelling inhabited by the three defendants, but it is sufficient to understand that the site was used for those purposes, since [Name 015] clearly indicates to his son that there is \"galeta\" in his dwelling and that this is the reason he fears for the security of his home and for the possibility that, given the knowledge that third parties might have of this situation, they would break into his dwelling. Even more, in the raids carried out at that dwelling, it became evident that it was a storage site for the organization's supplies—the detail is found further below. It must also be highlighted that the call denotes that [Name 015] not only actively participated in the storage activity, but also had full knowledge of the hierarchical position of [Name 001], whom he refers to as \"[Name 153],\" which is the reason he asks his son to speak with said individual in order to arrange security for his dwelling. Thus, this communication is actually useful if it is assessed together with those generated on May 18 and 19 transcribed previously, since it is possible to infer from their concatenated analysis that the defendants' dwelling was used for drug storage and that one of the occasions on which this situation occurred was precisely May 19, 2019, as held to be proven by the a quo. It bears repeating, these communications gain meaning and are corroborated based on the judicial police intervention carried out days before in the sector of Aserrí, when an important seizure of drugs supplied by [Name 029] took place. In summary, in the opinion of this Chamber, based on the evidence analyzed by the trial court, only the event detailed in point 4.15 can be considered proven, but not those set forth in points 4.14 and 4.16. Now, with regard to the defense's complaint concerning the modification of the year 2020 to 2019 carried out ex officio by the trial court, it is necessary to point out that it consists of the correction of a material error. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in fact 1 of the prosecutorial accusation, the temporal parameter was established within which the criminal organization operated and in which the accused persons would have carried out the assigned actions, specifically from April 2018 to October 2020. The corrected date falls within that range, and therefore, it is not a surprising circumstance for the defendant and his defense. In addition to the above, on folio 3959 verso, it is recorded that the communication taken as the main basis for that event corresponds to sequence 0113193, which formed part of the evidentiary material offered and admitted since the preliminary hearing, whose date of production, May 16, 2019, was recorded both in the police reports and in the transcriptions made by the judicial authority. Regarding the possibility of making material corrections to the date of the facts, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution No. 2004-00657, of 09:50, June 11, 2004, indicated: \"Therefore, although it is optimal that the temporal circumstances of the facts held to be proven are appropriately indicated—if possible—from the moment the accusation is formulated, if this is not the case, it will not affect the decision if it does not cause defenselessness, and in this case, as can be seen from the very content of the complaint, which was filed on the day the events occurred, there was no difficulty in placing the events in time, an aspect that was at all times known by the accused and his defense. Even further, when it is not possible to indicate the exact date, it would be sufficient to establish a temporal frame of reference, which allows the accused to carry out an adequate exercise of the defense. In relation to the foregoing, we must point out that the mere circumstance that the spatial or temporal placement of the events is altered in the verdict in a manner different from how it is set forth in the accusation does not imply the existence of a defect. Indeed, it is once the evidence has been presented that, in accordance with the accusatorial principles of orality, immediacy, concentration, continuity, and publicity inherent to the adversarial process, the investigated conducts can be established with greater precision, without that affecting the necessary correlation between what is accused and what is decided, since both pieces do not necessarily have to be identical to each other, but rather it is the essential core of the facts in both documents that must maintain similar characteristics, in order to guarantee effective respect for the accused's right to exercise his defense regarding the attributed actions.\" The criterion set forth by the Court of Cassation, which this Tribunal shares, details that, when defenselessness is not generated, the correction may be made and, in this case, the evidence added to the case file, to which the defense had access, allowed it to know this circumstance beforehand and even anticipate the correction that was finally made. By virtue of the foregoing, no defect is determined to have arisen from the material correction that was made. Furthermore, as already detailed, the prosecutorial accusation attributed other functions to the defendants, which also entail criminal liability for them, namely: [Name 022] and ([Name 013]): (i) personal security of [Name 001] (fact 3), (ii) retransmitting orders and directives from [Name 001] to other members of the structure (fact 3), (iii) stockpiling of weapons (facts 4.13, 6.6); [Name 015]: (i) providing support to his sons [Name 004] and [Name 022], in the functions assigned to them (fact 3); (ii) possession, storage, and custody of weapons (facts 3, 4.13 and 6.6). Not included in this list is the matter of handling money derived from drug trafficking, since the a quo concluded that it was constitutive of the crime of money laundering, an aspect that will be analyzed upon hearing the third ground of the appeal filed on behalf of these three defendants. Regarding these functions, the defense considers that they are generic and that circumstances of time, place, and manner are not justified. This Chamber considers that it is not correct. The Public Ministry brought charges against a criminal organization that has as one of its defining features permanence over time, hence the factual account circumscribes the existence of its operation within the period from April 2018 to October 2020. In addition to the above, the principal crime attributed to that organization is drug trafficking, which is characterized by being a permanent crime, whose criminality is maintained over time and continues to be consummated until the unlawful situation ceases; hence the setting of a period as a temporal parameter does not correspond to vagueness or imprecision, but to a circumstance inherent to the criminal phenomenon charged. It is observed that the existence of the organization, the period in which it operated, the places where it developed the principal criminal activity, and its objective, which corresponds to drug trafficking, are delimited in fact 1. Subsequently, in fact 2, the operational model used by the organization was described, in general terms, which consisted mainly of medium-scale trafficking through the distribution of drugs to other criminal organizations, as well as retail sales. Then, fact 3 clearly describes what function each of the defendants assumed within that criminal organization, from which the list of tasks held to be proven is extracted as outlined supra.\n\nFurther on, in fact 4.13, the temporal framework (marco temporal) of the facts is reiterated, along with part of the functions attributed to the three accused persons and the use of their dwelling house as a gathering site for the organization's supplies, and the address of the property is also recorded. We see, then, that the indictment contains sufficient information for the accused persons to understand the charges imputed and, based on that, to be able to exercise their technical and material defense. In indictments of this nature, in which a multiplicity of persons are charged for acts committed under an organized structure, the same precision as in simple crimes is not required, because the complexity, permanence, and division of tasks make it difficult to fix the date, place, and method of each individual act; however, this does not imply that the principle of imputation is violated, because what is essential is that the criminal phenomenon is clearly delimited —time, place, and method— and that the role each of the accused played in the configuration of the crime is described, so that they can understand the conduct attributed to them and thus structure their defense. Regarding the principle of imputation and the case-by-case analysis in its application, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has stated: «Pursuant to what has been described, the requirements of the accusatory document are set forth in Article 303 of the Procedural Code, which stipulates: “Indictment and request for trial. When the Public Prosecutor's Office considers that the investigation provides grounds to submit the accused to public trial, it shall file the indictment requesting the opening of the trial. The indictment must contain: a) The data used to identify the accused. b) The precise and detailed account of the punishable act attributed. c) The substantiation of the indictment, with the expression of the elements of conviction that motivate it. d) The citation of the applicable legal precepts. e) The offer of evidence to be presented at trial. With the indictment, the Public Prosecutor's Office shall forward to the judge the proceedings and evidence in its possession that can be incorporated into the debate.” Consequently, the aforementioned subsection a) of that normative precept holds a significant link to the right of defense and the principle of imputation, since, taking as a starting point the factual circumstances attributed in the prosecutorial reproach, the accused will have the power to materialize their material and technical defense; however, the requirement regarding the determination of temporal, modal, and spatial situations will depend on the type of illegality incriminated to the defendant and the particularities of the case» (Resolution No. 20211459, of 10:27 a.m. on December 9, 2021). Having made the foregoing clear, it must be pointed out that, based on a meticulous examination of the judgment, this Chamber observes that the intellectual foundation outlined by the a quo to support the accreditation of the remaining functions attributed to the accused is adequate, sufficient, and respectful of the rules of sound rational criticism. For these purposes, a multiplicity of evidentiary elements were evaluated, including the testimony of the acting officers, the police reports added to the case file, and a significant number of conversations among the accused persons, captured during various interception orders for telephone communications issued by the judge of the preparatory stage. As part of the modus operandi of the criminal organization prosecuted, the trial court determined that, by virtue of [Name 001] being the leader, the other accused persons deployed an entire security apparatus around him for his personal protection, which was verified from the beginning of the investigation with the first surveillances carried out at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center, where it was observed that several of those investigated, among them [Name 010] and [Name 161], accompanied said subject even to the entrance of the facility, as an escort. This dynamic was maintained throughout the investigation period and also included the participation of [Name 030], who on several occasions drove the vehicles in which [Name 001] was transported; [Name 029] and, of interest at this point in the ruling, the brothers [Name 022] and ([Name 013]). Information in this regard is developed in various sections of the judgment, which allows an understanding that the brothers ([Name 013], [Name 014], [Name 022]) had this function of security, custody, and protection of [Name 001] as a habitual task and not a casual or accidental one.\n\nOn November 2, 2018, according to report IP-320-EN-18, one of those accompaniments to the Centro de Atención Institucional Buen Pastor occurred, to which the a quo referred in the following manner: \"on November 2, 2018, judicial investigators again conducted surveillance at the Centro Penal El Buen Pastor, it being that as a result of the movements observed and furthermore the reflection of that captured by the jurisdictional authority, it was determined that ([Nombre 013]) alias [Nombre 124], was an active member of the criminal structure, as was recorded: 'with which the need observed by us was reflected, in that alias [Nombre 083] had to appear at the site where [Nombre 010] was already located, being the CAI Vilma Curling, likewise [Nombre 083] indicated \"...I'm going to pick up [Nombre 124]...\" which evidenced to us that the subject who arrived as an accompanier in the vehicle with license plate [Valor 045] would be the one identified by the alias [Nombre 124], who as a result of the various surveillances we have conducted, would be the same person for whom the duties of custody and safeguarding of alias [Nombre 084] have been verified, it being so that as a result of the various police information sources as well as the public information contained in various social networks, it was determined that this is [Nombre 013], holder of identification number [Valor 005], who has been recurrently observed in surveillances conducted by us, such as the surveillance conducted in the Heredia sector, [Nombre 056] on April 20, 2018, where he was observed in the company of a third party as well as on June 29 of this year, surveillances that were timely presented to your authority in IP297-EN-18. From the various queries, the following was obtained:..\" (folio 12 report IP-320-EN-18), the photographs inserted in the report on markings having been observed, which form part of the surveillances conducted by the investigators in the vicinity of the Centro Penal El Buen Pastor, it is deemed accredited that it is indeed ([Nombre 013]), that is, it is clearly appreciable that it is the same person that the court has held as the accused during the ongoing trial\" [sic] (cf. folios 479 to 480 of the judgment). There are abundant captures of telephone communications among the accused, including the brothers ([Nombre 013], [Nombre 014], [Nombre 022]), in which they organized to move [Nombre 001] from one place to another. From these, the manner in which these transfers were carried out can, indeed, be reconstructed, which consisted of, while [Nombre 001] was being moved in one of the vehicles used for those purposes together with one of the accused, another or others of them would travel in a different means of transport, ahead on the route. In the case of ([Nombre 013]), some of the most relevant communications taken up again by the judgment in that regard consist of the following: \"From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0037531. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 23:01 hours on May 7, 2019. [Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 124], [Nombre 124] said – come here to the one and pick me up right away, we have to go pick him up now, [Nombre 083] said – deay go ahead man, I'm nearby here, [Nombre 124] said – oh okay I'm leaving now to the one, ready, [Nombre 083] said – go up to the, go up. Communication ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0037548. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 01:04 hours on May 8, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 083], [Nombre 124] said - **all good [Nombre 162]?, well okay, is that [Nombre 163]?, [Nombre 083] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 083] said - which way are you guys coming?, [Nombre 124] said – I'm here at my EBAIS, [Nombre 083] said – yes, here, [Nombre 163] is headed that way because they're in the Corolla, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh uh-huh, what for?, [Nombre 083] said – I don't know, [Nombre 083] said - bridge?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, bridge I'm going, hit it, I'm going, are there any cops?, [Nombre 083] said – no, nothing, [Nombre 124] said – ah good ok, I'm on my way out, how much longer?, [Nombre 083] said – ninety-five, ninety-four, [Nombre 124] said – twenty-four yes, let's go straight, [Nombre 083] said – ninety-four , [Nombre 083] said – fourth, there's room for twenty-four, ninety-four, up top there's only one car and two motorcycles coming, after the motorcycles you can go for it, after the motorcycle you can go for it**, [Nombre 124] said – okay, okay, all good, at eleven, [Nombre 083] said - what at eleven? I have to go to, I have to go to, I have to go pick up and drop off [Nombre 164], [Nombre 124] said – yeah man and then after the crazy hatter, [Nombre 083] said – ah okay okay, [Nombre 124] said – okay you let me know, **[Nombre 001] said on the extra phone – he, the hatter will let you know**; they say goodbye. Call ends. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0038927. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 16:42 hours on May 09, 2019. [Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 124], [Nombre 083] said – **dude, there’s a woman going down here on the main road downwards, towards Gara, towards the Power downwards, [Nombre 124] said – from the Power uh-huh, [Nombre 083] said - should I watch towards Uruca or what?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, send one down and come back down again, but right now, go ahead and go down right now. Go up and come back down like crazy, [Nombre 083] said – yes, but hit up your little brother to see if they come up from there or if they head left where they are or what**, [Nombre 124] said – that guy is busy, [Nombre 083] said - what about [Nombre 109] man?, [Nombre 124] said – I already sent [Nombre 109] to the corner, [Nombre 083] said – yeah that's why, keep an eye out for [Nombre 109] to tell you, man yeah, he took Garavito or he went by the school, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 083] said – but call him right now because he was already going down and by now he should almost be arriving where he is […]. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0038932. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 16:47 hours on May 09, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 124], [Nombre 124] said – already here I go, plaza, [Nombre 083] said – mae but that Ofera watch here to turn at AyA, at AyA, at the [Nombre 166], [Nombre 124] said – huh?, [Nombre 083] said – I'm going to turn here at the [Nombre 166] just barely but shoot I need to locate the one that was here mae, [Nombre 124] said – go ahead, [Nombre 083] said – I need to locate her to see if she went up or went to the, shoot but surely [Nombre 109] is there on the corner mae, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 083] said – that's why, and how come he couldn't see her?, [Nombre 124] said – because he was just leaving, [Nombre 083] said – hey mae, [Nombre 124] said – he's just arriving, [Nombre 083] said – and now yeah, now I have to suck it up because now I have to look for her damn it, to see if she went via Garabito or to see if, shoot man, that fucking useless piece of shit who's no good for anything, there are two here, two cops but they are obviously the ones who are there watching at the entrance of Gara, [Nombre 124] said – walking, [Nombre 083] said – yes, on the right hand side, before entering Gara, [Nombre 124] said – yes yes those don't matter, [Nombre 083] said – before entering Gara, here I go entering Gara to see if, if what, if she's parked here or she left or that fucking useless son of a bitch who's no good for anything, and you didn't chew him out, no?, [Nombre 124] said – I told him what he's up to, you're fucking up then you be here on top of everything, well there, [Nombre 083] said – here I come through Gara and all clear, [Nombre 124] said – well here I am going to enter, no longer, [Nombre 083] said – huh?\n\n[Nombre 124] said – I'm at the traffic light, [Nombre 083] said – ok, I'm going to go up here and I'll go back in there via the main road and arrive at the entrance of Gara, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 083] said – that fucking useless motherfucker, I didn't see [Nombre 109] mae here, [Nombre 124] said – here I am, [Nombre 083] said – now heading here, heading to the main road, to see if she's at the guardhouse, [Nombre 001] said extra telephone – mae and tattoo that guy more, [Nombre 124] said – it's just that I still, [Nombre 001] said extra telephone – nobody is bothering him mae, [Nombre 124] said – it's just that I still, [Nombre 001] said extra telephone – and nobody is bothering him mae, [Nombre 001] said – the guy sends everyone outside to [Nombre 124], only this guy and big [Nombre 124] were there and he was listening to music mae, (unintelligible), [Nombre 124] said – here I am, they're coming, I'm almost entering, [Nombre 083] said – I'm already arriving here at the, at the entrance of the guardhouse, [Nombre 124] said – go ahead, here I'm almost entering [Nombre 001] said extra telephone – (unintelligible) motherfucker, (unintelligible), a tire damn it, [Nombre 083] said – the guardhouse is empty, [Nombre 124] said – all calm there, [Nombre 083] said – it's empty mae, [Nombre 124] said – here I'm entering now, [Nombre 083] said – ok I am already arriving here at the entrance of Gara, [Nombre 124] said – (unintelligible) I'm going here, [Nombre 083] said – those cops are moving downwards, [Nombre 124] said – oh good here I go, [Nombre 083] said – is she coming already? [Nombre 124] said – ha, here I go, but slowly slowly, here I go slowly slowly, [Nombre 083] said – this side, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 083] said – ha, [Nombre 124] said – yes, all clear?, [Nombre 083] said – yes […]” (Highlighting does not correspond to the original. Cf. folios 506 to 509 of the judgment). It is clear that who was accompanying [Nombre 001] when these recordings were produced was ([Nombre 013]), alias “[Nombre 124]” and that [Nombre 029], alias “[Nombre 083]” was alerting about the status of the route. Furthermore, one of the purposes of this dynamic is evident, specifically to alert about the police presence, so that the means of transport of alias “[Nombre 084]” would not be identified. Other communications recorded in the judgment and that refer to similar events correspond to sequence 0255028, from line [Valor 097], produced at 20:46 hours; from the intercepted line [Valor 098] sequences 0318379, at 20:53, 0318381, at 20:56 and 0318389, at 21:07 hours; from the intercepted line [Valor 099], sequences 0323442, at 21:00 hours; 0323443, at 21:04;\n\n0323450, at 21:22 hours; 0323451, at 21:26 and from line [Valor 064], sequence 0027474, at 21:10 hours; although they are not the only ones.\n\nIn the case of [Name 022], the evidence analyzed by the lower court (a quo) shows a similar dynamic, regarding the protection of [Name 001]. By way of example, the communication from telephone line [Value 077], with sequence number 0025160, at 12:42 p.m. on April 25, 2019, in which [Name 029], identified by his alias “[Name 083],” and [Name 022], identified by the nickname “[Name 123],” share information about the state of the place where [Name 001] would be traveling, whom the investigated parties refer to as “ese mae”: “[Name 083] spoke [Name 123], [Name 123] said – [Name 083] said – mae get on the corner each of you get going because ese mae is already coming nearby mae, [Name 123] said – I’m going mae, [Name 083] said – one on the lower corner and the other on the upper corner but get going because they are already arriving here in La Uruca mae your little brother forgot to tell you guys mae, then you’re not there, [Name 123] said – okay. Communication ends” (cf. f. 506 of the judgment). It should be clarified that the way of referring to [Name 001], as “ese mae,” does not correspond to a speculation or presumption of the lower court (a quo), but rather is amply referred to on several occasions throughout the judgment, since it was able to determine that it is one of the protection mechanisms used by the group to avoid revealing the identity of said subject. This Chamber verified that the inference is correct, because on several occasions they refer to him in that way, for example, in the event that occurred on December 3, 2019, when administrative police officers apprehended [Name 001] to transfer him to a police station, which caused a significant flow of communications among the investigated parties, in which it was mentioned that they took “a ese mae” —information in that regard will be recorded further on—. Another example of [Name 022]’s participation in transfers of [Name 001] is evident from sequence 0043994, generated with the intercepted line [Value 077], at 3:32 p.m. on May 14, 2019: “[Name 083] spoke with [Name 123], [Name 083] said – mae go like crazy to the corner, ese mae is coming now, [Name 123] said – ok, [Name 083] said – and call [Name 109] mae and you guys go like crazy because they are already coming here through La Uruca mae, [Name 123] said – ok. Communication ends” (cf. f. 510 of the judgment). From the foregoing, what stands out, as a relevant fact, is the joint and concerted participation among the brothers ([Name 013], [Name 014], [Name 022]) with [Name 029], who as already indicated was the main person responsible for the transport and supply of drugs to other organizations, which proves that they worked with a common purpose, according to the functions assigned to each of them —throughout this ruling, an extensive development of this division of tasks is made—. The analyzed ruling also recounts several communications among the brothers ([Name 022], [Name 014], [Name 013]), in which the collusion of both is denoted, in the transmission of information about the state of the places through which [Name 001] had to circulate, who was generally accompanied by [Name 013]. As an example of the foregoing, the following conversations: “From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0146523. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 5:20 p.m. on April 11, 2019. [Name 124] called [Name 123] and said – go ahead, [Name 123] said – hello, [Name 124] said – get going, [Name 123] said – okay I’m going I’m going I’m going, with [Name 109]. Communication ends. From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0146527. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 5:28 p.m. on April 11, 2019. [Name 124] called [Name 123], [Name 123] said – there are only a few cars because they have a party there in front where, where that son of a bitch [carepicha] I think, [Name 124] said – but can you get through there?, [Name 123] said – yes obviously obviously obviously, everything is fine but there are a few cars, oh okay, yeah, to turn around well it's that some guy left a car parked across there, move move that car, get going because I'm already here, [Name 166], [Name 123] said – okay I'm going, [Name 124] said – move that car. Communication ends. From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0146530. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 5:29 p.m. on April 11, 2019. [Name 123] called [Name 124] and said – now now, everything's fine, I already moved the little car, [Name 123] said – yeah, he's already moving it, [Name 124] said – oh okay, [Name 123] said something that is not understood, [Name 124] said – okay okay okay, he already moved it […] From [Value 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0148839. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 086]. This call was made at 6:01 p.m. on April 13, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 124] called [Nombre 123] and said – take care of la uno, [Nombre 123] said – huh?, [Nombre 124] said – take care of la uno, [Nombre 123] said – okay I'm on my way, I'll get to you, [Nombre 124] said – with nothing, with nothing, [Nombre 123] said – ok ok, [Nombre 124] said – get going. Communication ends […] From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0455823. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 13:11 hours on May 3, 2019. [Nombre 123] called [Nombre 124], [Nombre 123] said – are they close yet?, [Nombre 124] said something unintelligible, [Nombre 123] said – all good all good, nothing can be seen, man, well nothing has been seen for a while; they say goodbye. Communication ends […] From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0455918. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 13:32 hours on May 5, 2019. [Nombre 123] called [Nombre 124], [Nombre 123] said – where are you?, [Nombre 124] said – I'm around here, [Nombre 123] said – good good, I'll call you, [Nombre 124] said – I'm going to throw myself on the corner then, or not?, [Nombre 123] said – uh, yes, call [Nombre 109], [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 123] said – done. Communication ends […] From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0457280. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 21:16 hours on May 13, 2019. [Nombre 004] alias “[Nombre 124]” spoke with [Nombre 123], [Nombre 123] said – one was going up slowly, surely right now it's going past where [Nombre 189] is, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 123] said – okay. From [Valor 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0114596. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 086]. This call was made at 18:57 hours on May 21, 2019. [Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 123], [Nombre 123] said to him – What the hell, what time are you coming?, [Nombre 124] said – watch the hole, on the corner, [Nombre 123] said – man it's raining, dude, [Nombre 124] said – it's raining. [Nombre 124] said – find yourself some flip-flops, something, and stand there, [Nombre 123] said and where are you guys?, [Nombre 124] said – I'm just arriving, [Nombre 123] said – here at the hole?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 123] said – which way are they coming, [Nombre 124] said – by the slope, [Nombre 123] said – by the slope, motherfucker, they're coming really close now, well I'm going to see if I go out, [Nombre 124] said – tell [Nombre 109] to stop, [Nombre 123] said – I don't think so, that motherfucker, [Nombre 124] said – well okay. Communication ends [sic]. Now, this deployment of actions by the accused to provide security for [Nombre 001], more than an act of submission or servility, notoriously had a more important objective, which was to ensure his freedom of movement and personal safety. A large part of the communications captured refer to the presence of police forces and it is evident that these are what they seek to avoid. And so it is that on December 3, 2018, an event occurred —already mentioned— in which [Nombre 001] was approached by officers of the Fuerza Pública, precisely because the security device failed. The event was documented in report IP-033-EN-2019 and is extensively developed in the judgment, in the section “Hechos en contra de [Nombre 010] con relación a tráfico de drogas y con autorización de [Nombre 001]” (cfr. f. 456 of the judgment), which, despite having another of the defendants as the main subject, also refers to aspects that link ([Nombre 013]). In said section, the following communications were recorded: from the intercepted line [Valor 097], sequence 0255028; at 20:46 hours; from the intercepted line [Valor 098] sequences 0318379, at 20:53, 0318381, at 20:56 and 0318389, at 21:07 hours; from the intercepted line [Valor 099], sequences 0323442, at 21:00 hours; 0323443, at 21:04; 0323450, at 21:22 hours, 0323451, at 21:26 and from the line [Valor 064], sequence 0027474, at 21:10 hours. These consist of interactions among the members of the criminal organization who find themselves in a state of alert due to the apprehension of [Nombre 001].\n\nDue to its relevance, sequence 0255028 stands out, in which [Nombre 001] himself refers to a third party about the police action: «[Nombre 001] called subject and said – man, subject said – good evening young man, how are you?, [Nombre 001] said – man, don't cut me off, don't cut me off, don't cut me off, subject said – ok, [Nombre 001] said – it's that they are taking me out escorted from La León to the delegation but I don't know which delegation, supposedly the regional director wants to talk to me, they're going to take me out I don't know why here don't cut me off because I'm going to go monitored to wherever they take me, subject said – ok, but who are they taking you with?, [Nombre 001] said – the GAO the police, I'm going alone in my car they're coming on motorcycles behind me, subject said – ok, anything that implicates you?, [Nombre 001] said – absolutely nothing man I'm clean, subject said – which delegation?, [Nombre 001] said – I don't know, it's that here I'm going behind them they're probably taking me to Tibás or I don't know where, they're telling me to leave, subject said – but are you going with one of them?, [Nombre 001] said – no I'm going alone in my car, they already searched the car completely, subject said – ok, and where is the delegation?, [Nombre 001] said – in Tibás by the Saprissa stadium and one is by the Mas x Menos in Tibás, subject said – but you don't know which one?, [Nombre 001] said – I don't know which one because here they're taking me I don't know which one I'm going to, subject said – ok but you're not going as, [Nombre 001] said – I'm going in a caravan, I have like ten motorcycles about five are behind me and five in front, subject said – ok but you're not going as a detainee, [Nombre 001] said – no no I'm driving my car, they already checked my license and a cop who checked me said everything's thirty-three but I don't know you know they're probably going to set the dogs on me and stuff, subject said – no no no we agree but nothing that implicates you?, [Nombre 001] said – absolutely man, subject said – ok go because you are not currently being treated as a detainee, if there had been any type of capture and remand you would immediately be handcuffed and they would be taking you in a paddy wagon, ok? so let's see what the man wants to talk to you about see because that type of transfer is not common see, third subject out of phone said – or tell him if he needs a lawyer to see what we come up with, second subject said – see, now, if you need some lawyer to show up or something now to see what, [Nombre 001] said – it's that look I'm talking because I'm in my car, second subject said – that's correct, [Nombre 001] said – but right now they're going to take my phone away as soon as we arrive wherever they take me I don't know where they're taking me, second subject said – obviously, [Nombre 001] said – look the other time they transferred me like that when I was in a place in Belén and they took me and searched the car and all that crap because well because one is one and that's it, third subject out of phone said – but then what do you want? do you want us to find a lawyer or just go for it?, [Nombre 001] said – it's that I don't even know where they're taking me dumbass, second subject said – if you say there's a delegation by Saprissa, and there's another… [Nombre 001] said – there's one by Saprissa and one by the Mas x Menos in Tibás but I don't know which one they're taking me to, if they're taking me over there but if they take me somewhere else I don't know, second subject said – ok, by whose order are you going?, [Nombre 001] said – uh no one's the public force is taking me just being guarded, second subject said – yes yes yes but didn't you ever ask by whose order?, [Nombre 001] said – man, what for?, they don't even let you talk how are they going to tell me all those protocols, I'm not a lawyer, second subject said – ok, third subject out of phone said – that's why so what, do we need to find a lawyer or what?, second subject said well let's see if well if I move to see what, [Nombre 001] said – well just stay there in the meantime, stay there in the meantime until my phone gets cut off, second subject said – ok perfect, [Nombre 001] said – I'm talking on speakerphone because I have those guys watching me closely understand so I'm talking with the windows up, third subject out of phone said – do you need me to top up your balance or what?, [Nombre 001] said – no no no no no no I have a plan I think it holds up, second subject said – ok, how far do you think you are from the destination?, [Nombre 001] said – well I figure if it's not Copey it's Tibás and it's about five or six minutes but I don't know, I'm going to find out more or less where they're taking me, second subject said – well ok, don't hang up, third subject out of phone said – uh, doesn't Cafecito move at this hour, huh?, second subject said – I'll see if I call him, no but it's that I have to wait for him, third subject out of phone said – no no get the number from there and we'll call him from another phone, [Nombre 001] said – but I think I'm going to Tibás because I'm already here by Yorente in Tibás, third subject out of phone said – yes because it's better that when he arrives, I'm at such and such point so Cafesito can already head there, even better if possible so he arrives right away and sees when they see that he arrived and that the lawyer arrived immediately, second subject said – give it that small window, third subject out of phone said – since there it's just a matter of getting the number easy, [Nombre 001] said – man if I tell you to hang up hang up you hear, third subject said – ok, [Nombre 001] said – if I tell you to hang up hang up because I'm here see dumbass in plain sight and I can't hang up because the phone light shows then to play dumb now, anyway I'm not detained or anything, I'm driving my car probably just crap as always well I haven't done anything, a guy was going to let me go but another guy came and said no, third subject out of phone said – bothering for nothing they get, [Nombre 001] said – yes another guy came and said no man you have to come with us well what am I going to do, look I'm telling you I'm at the traffic light at my plot in Tibás I'm going to tell you now which way I'm going to go, second subject said – ok, [Nombre 001] said – I think towards the Mas x Menos in Tibás, next to Mas x Menos there it is, second subject said – yes, third subject said – he's calling the lawyer right now, send him a message here on WhatsApp right now, just tell him to answer, [Nombre 001] said – well I arrived it's the one in Tibás next to Mas x Menos, second subject said – ok. Communication ends» [sic] (Highlighting does not correspond to the original. Cf. pages 371 to 372 of the judgment). Although this communication does not detail, the following ones clarify that [Nombre 013], to whom they refer by the alias «[Nombre 124]», was the one accompanying [Nombre 001] at the moment when Public Force officers intercepted him. In that sense, sequence 0318381, from which it is also derived that they refer to [Nombre 001] as «that dude»: «[Nombre 010] spoke with female, from said conversation the following information of interest was obtained […] [Nombre 010] said – well nothing that they just took that dude away, female said – what?, [Nombre 010] said – they took him away, female said – where?, [Nombre 010] said – well like well I don't know, there everything, female said – love love your audio cut out, [Nombre 010] said – that they took that dude away, female said – but where?, [Nombre 010] said – well I don't know, female said – oh I don't believe you [Nombre 010], [Nombre 010] said – yes but don't say anything don't say anything and don't tell the other one anything, female said – I'm not going to tell her anything, are you crazy?, surely she's going to find out, [Nombre 010] said – yes there they took him away, he was with [Nombre 124], female said – and he went with [Nombre 124]?, [Nombre 010] said – well yes they got in the car I think some buddies got in there and took off all the motorcycles were behind him, female said – I don't believe you, jonde said – he's going for mugshots, female said – my love do you have me on speaker?, [Nombre 010] said – no, female said – love that's weird, huh?, [Nombre 010] said – yes my love surely they're on a tour, female said – surely now they're going to beat him up like they always do; they talk about matters of no interest to the investigation.\n\nCommunication ends» [sic] (cf. f. 365 of the judgment. Emphasis supplied). Furthermore, sequence 0323442: «[Name 168] called [Name 083] and said to her - what would happen if you don't arrive?, [Name 083] said – well look ma'am [Name 168] it's that they nabbed us and they're taking us for booking to take our photos, [Name 168] said something that is not understood, [Name 083] said – yes, [Name 168] said - what what happened?, [Name 083] said – they just detained us to take us to take our booking photos but it's something normal, [Name 168] said – and for a while now right, [Name 083] said – just just if you could see the shitload of cops that are there and nobody told us a damn thing, [Name 168] said – but are you guys coming clean right?, [Name 083] said – ah no yeah yeah yeah yeah everything's fine everything's fine, [Name 168] said – okay, [Name 083] said – okay, [Name 168] said - and who are the ones detained like that?, [Name 083] said – uhhh [Name 124], him and they just let me go but they're about to let them go, [Name 168] said – oh okay, [Name 083] said – just routine you know how nasty they are, [Name 168] said – uh-huh; they say goodbye. Communication ends» (cf. f. 365 of the judgment. Emphasis supplied). On the other hand, the need to guarantee the personal integrity and even the life of [Name 001] was reflected in the judgment, in the section «Regarding [Name 030] and the acts of drug trafficking», which documented an attack against the alias «[Name 084]» and his companions, which occurred at the Tienda Monge business, located in Zapote, in the vicinity of the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales. On that occasion «[Name 084]» was with [Name 030] and [Name 022]; this latter individual was even wounded in the event and, despite that, he did not want to file any complaint which, as the a quo rightly pointed out, is not strange in criminal organizations, so as not to leave a trace of their clashes. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the body of evidence set forth in the judgment effectively allows for the determination that the defendants [Name 022] and ([Name 013]) had as one of their functions within the criminal organization, to provide security, by way of escort and custody, to [Name 001]. Furthermore, the judgment explains that part of the measures adopted by the members of the organization to protect [Name 001] was to prevent him from interacting directly with the remaining members of the organization, which is why he used intermediaries for the transmission of information. On this subject, the judgment states: «On the other hand it is worth recalling a call between [Name 029] and his romantic partner [Name 026], within the context of the drug deliveries and receipt of money for the sales of narcotics to the organization of [Name 099] (facts already substantiated) in which the alias “[Name 083]” told his partner: “right now I set [Name 124] to, like, reporting to me so to speak, and I told him I'm arriving now I'm going so he said okay and I told him because I told those people that, I told [Name 136] that the people already had the money right for the babies and the stuff, female said – uh-huh, [Name 083] said – so then I said well that, at the same time as always I mean at twelve o'clock, female said – uh-huh, [Name 083] said – so then I told him umm, I told him that they already have the money that at what time and I don't know what so he told me tell them at the same time as always you know, female said – uh-huh, [Name 083] said – so then I go oh well if that's fine then I get to the neighborhood and get lost then he said okay...”, clearly reflecting the deliveries of what they identify as \"BEBES\" or \"BABYS\" to refer to the packages of cocaine hydrochloride, just as it was Mr. [Name 001] the person to whom the alias [Name 083] and the rest of the accused would have to report all the different proceedings carried out, but beyond them in this case [Name 001] alias [Name 136] is informed through the alias “[Name 124]”, that is to say that the alias “[Name 124]” was one of the persons known to be in the company of the leader» [sic] (cf. f. 484 of the judgment). As for that intermediary work, the judgment revisits the communication with sequence number 0337010, from the telephone line [Value 100], generated at 20:42 hours on February 4, 2019. «[Name 109] called [Name 124], [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124], [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124] said – go ahead, [Name 109] said - buddy where are you?, [Name 124] said – inside why?, do you need something?, [Name 109] said – man tell that dude if I can go over for a bit, [Name 124] said – okay, [Name 109] said – tell him tell him so I can go right away, [Name 109] said – (mentions something that is not understood) bastard maybe, [Name 109] said – ah, but tell him man so that so we can see if he says I can go or not man because maybe he says no or something like that because I have to be here, [Name 124] said – just ask asshole come on, [Name 109] said – ah, [Name 124] said – come on come on ask, [Name 109] said – no man because then he tells me no don't go stay there and he chews me out, tell him man, [Name 124] said – what a pussy then you wimp out, they continue talking without interest. Communication ends» (cf. f. 499 of the judgment). Along the same lines, further on, the lower court ruling refers «in the call identified with sequence 0037847 the possibility of the delivery and/or receipt of some vehicle by another organization was detailed, using for this a contact with a subject they identify with the alias [Name 263], this by stating “[Name 083] said – or maybe I do go look for him again at the house, [Name 001] said off phone – have him arrive with his car man, have him arrive walking man, [Name 124] told [Name 083] – arrive walking, and he will take him in his car, [Name 083] said – okay I'm going, ok, [Name 124] said – get going, but now...”» (cf. f. 518 of the judgment).\n\nFurthermore, the police report IP-033-EN-19 is revisited, in which, as a point of interest, it describes: \"As has been mentioned to your authority in the various preliminary reports submitted, we are facing a fully identified criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking, where its members fulfill very marked roles and functions of logistics and coordination of illicit operations, led by [Nombre 001] alias [Nombre 084], who uses different members to relay his orders and thus avoid the use of cellular devices to avoid leaving possible telephone traces locatable by us and binding in the event of any eventual police action against him, having trusted men whom he uses to relay the necessary orders for the commission of the illicit act, being [Nombre 007] alias [Nombre 109] (user of the telephone line [Valor 100] and [Valor 101]) as well as a subject identified as ([Nombre 013]) alias [Nombre 124] (user of the telephone line [Valor 102] and [Valor 095]) those in charge of transferring all directives to the other members of the narco structure, being men who would be most of the time at the service of [Nombre 001] and even provide safeguarding and protection of the leader of the criminal organization\" [sic] (cf. f. 489 to 490 of the judgment). To the above, it is added that the precautions of [Nombre 001], of not having telephone interactions that could compromise him, obeys a precaution against possible wiretaps. In this sense, the trial court reasons: \"The relationship of [Nombre 001] regarding his involvement in criminal activities was reflected in a series of calls captured by the jurisdictional authority, for example sequence 0159832, in which Mr. [Nombre 001] expressed his suspicion of having said telephone service intervened by stating 'it's surely the judge who is recording that damn son of a bitch, female said - who is recording?, [Nombre 001] said – the judge is recording me, because it only shows me that I can't call, it's surely because he already, and I can't even top up because it doesn't give me the top-up option, female said – oh my, they're going to tap my phone man for calling you, what shit, oh god...'\" (cf. fs. 503 to 504 of the judgment). We see then that this function of retransmitting orders from [Nombre 001] to other members of the criminal organization was part of the precautions taken by the members of the criminal organization so that their leader would not be involved in dynamics that could compromise him and generate some responsibility, in the event that some investigation was developed against him. It is important to denote that this function was proven only in the case of ([Nombre 013]), not of his brother [Nombre 022]. In the case of the defendant [Nombre 015], she was attributed, among other functions, those of collaborating with the tasks entrusted to her children and stockpiling weapons in her home. On the matter, various communications captured as a result of the wiretapping also stand out: \"From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0456185. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 12:16 hours on May 11, 2019. [Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 125], [Nombre 125] said – son look, are you guys by any chance coming here?, [Nombre 125] said – look, don't even come close because right now all the (unintelligible) are coming, the little pigs are screwing around man, they are lying down (unintelligible) Jurgen and all those people, the sons of [Nombre 171] from down here threw (unintelligible) at them, those from down here and (unintelligible) went and started calling the law, so you turn back because this is going to get, this, a hornet's nest was stirred up down here, you understand me?, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 125] said – and it's going to become a hornet's nest daddy, I mean this is already a hornet's nest, they already shot at each other and they're going crazy there and if legally this is going to become a hornet's nest then oh well you know that later they follow up on you guys right, well be careful then see I'm warning you, stay alert I'm warning you, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 125] said – okay, be careful, okay, [Nombre 124] said – look, put that phone to charge for me, [Nombre 125] said - which phone daddy?, ha, [Nombre 124] said – an iphone, [Nombre 125] said - which one?, [Nombre 124] said – the iphone, [Nombre 125] said - a big one here, which one?, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 125] said - a pink one?, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, big one, yes, [Nombre 125] said – oh okay, alright, I'll put it to charge for you then daddy, [Nombre 124] said – that's fine, it's the friend's but oh well it's dead, [Nombre 125] said – ha alright, in case they don't know me; they say goodbye. Communication ends. From [Valor 096]. Call identified with sequence number 0456196. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 15:31 hours on May 11, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 125], [Nombre 125] said – my son, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 125] said – um, I'm just going to tell you a name and catch it on the fly, notice that it was cuervo and with a little toy from the same person from around there, and this is bewitched they say that, that they're going to talk to uncle so that he disappears because they're going to bring, they're going to do a big cleansing, [Nombre 124] said – haaa, [Nombre 125] said – hey, or let's see if he gives them how that is, some support or I don't know what it is, right, [Nombre 124] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 125] said – I mean, I don't know, I mean, to see what, I mean, like an opinion something like that, [Nombre 125] said – to see if he gives them his opinion that yes, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 125] said – do you understand? I don't know, something like that, [Nombre 124] said – what, what do I see?, [Nombre 125] said – I'm just giving you the wisdom so you know because I come from down there, that they called me to see if I had pills, I told them no but then there I heard the comment (they talk about matters of no interest), minute 00:01:29 [Nombre 125] said – he's coming right now to specify it well for you, dad, [Nombre 124] said – alright, alright, [Nombre 125] said – yes, he's coming right now to specify it well because, well, you know one has to watch one's own back, right. Communication ends. From [Valor 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0106610. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 103]. This call was made at 20:54 hours on May 12, 2019. [Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 125], [Nombre 124] said – mommy, [Nombre 125] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 124] said – wake up [Nombre 022] and have him come quickly with the piece, [Nombre 125] said – but it's not possible, didn't you see there were a bunch on the corner, [Nombre 124] said – what here on the corner?, [Nombre 125] said – uh-huh, right down here, just around the corner there are several, [Nombre 124] said – there's nothing, [Nombre 125] said – did they already leave?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 125] said – well then, put him on it, you watch the entrances, son, have him go quickly (unintelligible), [Nombre 124] said – have him do it, [Nombre 125] said – but have him do it now because there are a bunch of them, but have him do it, daddy, well look daddy, watch the entrance for me, he's coming, right, [Nombre 124] said – here I go, here I go to check at the window. Communication ends […] From [Valor 094]. Call identified with sequence number 0109297. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 103]. This call was made at 19:29 hours on November 17, 2019. [Nombre 013] alias “[Nombre 124]/[Nombre 124]” received a call from [Nombre 015] alias “[Nombre 125]”, user of the telephone line [Valor 103]. [Nombre 004] said -hello, [Nombre 015] said -daddy, [Nombre 004] said -hey, [Nombre 015] said -um, catch it, a bunch of little candies, right, [Nombre 004] said -yes, [Nombre 015] said -ok, just be careful because they're coming around here, around there, and everywhere, [Nombre 004] said alright, [Nombre 015] said -well be careful, [Nombre 004] said -um, in all, [Nombre 015] said -yes, you too, [Nombre 004] said -alright, [Nombre 015] said -may God be with you, [Nombre 004] said -amen, [Nombre 015] said -alright” [sic] (cfr. fs. 525 to 527, 545 of the judgment). The foregoing communications reveal that, effectively, [Nombre 015], who was identified by the alias “[Nombre 125]”, was on the lookout for any police action that could compromise his children, to whom he provided information in that regard so that they could evade it. Adding to the foregoing is the communication captured a few lines earlier, in which the defendant mentions that in her home there is “galeta,” thereby evidencing her knowledge, but above all her conspiracy, in lending her home for the storage of the organization's goods. Finally, regarding the participation of the three defendants, one of the functions attributed to them was confirmed in the raid, search, and seizure carried out at their home located in [...], on October 13, 2020. On that occasion, among other items of interest, were located: a Beretta brand pistol-type firearm with a filed-off serial number, with stamped number 666 on the barrel part, with a black magazine containing 15 unfired 9mm caliber rounds; a Taurus brand model TF056301 black 9x19 caliber pistol-type firearm, with a black magazine and 16 unfired 9mm caliber rounds; a Glock brand model PFA677 black 9x19 caliber pistol-type firearm, with a black magazine with a 16-round capacity and two black magazines each with a 30-round capacity containing 21 unfired 9x19 caliber rounds; a Beretta brand model 1108590 black 9mm caliber pistol-type firearm, with a black 15-round magazine containing 15 unfired rounds and a sound suppressor; three hundred eighty-nine unfired 7.62 x 39 caliber rounds; three hundred twenty unfired 5.56 caliber rounds, 3 magazines and one extra-capacity magazine; a .40 caliber pistol magazine with a 28-round capacity containing 13 unfired .40 caliber rounds. Again, under the logic of the division of functions set forth in the accusation and confirmed in the judgment, this stockpile of weapons belonging to the defendants is closely related to the security and custody function that the brothers ([Nombre 013], [Nombre 014], [Nombre 022]) performed within the criminal organization. Information in that sense also derives from the telephone interceptions, namely: “From [Valor 095]. Call identified with sequence number 0122488. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 086]. This call was made at 19:05 hours on May 4, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 004], alias “[Nombre 124]”, spoke with a subject identified as [Nombre 123]. [Nombre 124] said – man, [Nombre 123] said – what?, [Nombre 124] said – what happened with the iron axe?, [Nombre 123] said – I already put it away, [Nombre 124] said – oh good, [Nombre 123] said – yeah upstairs, an unknown subject on the phone said – man, he hasn't put anything away, the iron is right here. Communication ends” (cf. f. 533 of the judgment). On this point, it is recalled that, during the first surveillance operation conducted by the police on the investigated individuals, specifically on April 3, 2018, a firearm that [Nombre 010] was carrying was confiscated. Indeed, on that occasion, one of the security deployments of the investigated individuals regarding [Nombre 001] was detected, as he appeared at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center to visit his romantic partner. Furthermore, in sequence 0106610, [Nombre 013] spoke with his mother and asked her to wake up his brother so he could go to the site where “the iron” was located, which, in colloquial language, is a way of referring to firearms, as the a quo correctly pointed out. From the foregoing account, in this Chamber's opinion, it is possible to consider clearly and sufficiently proven the functions attributed by the Public Prosecutor's Office and confirmed in the judgment, to the three defendants who have been alluded to —with the exception already stated—. In summary, of the constituent facts of drug storage that the trial court considered proven against the defendants [Nombre 015], [Nombre 022], and ([Nombre 013]), only the one located on May 19, 2019, was adequately verified. The remaining functions: security, stockpiling of weapons, and transmission of information under the terms that have been described —and with the exception of the transmission of orders by [Nombre 022] to third parties—, were duly proven. Consequently, the attribution of criminal liability as co-perpetrators in the crime of aggravated drug trafficking for the three defendants, under the terms set forth in the judgment, has not undergone any variation, with the clarifications made in this pronouncement. We must now address certain specific complaints from the defense. The appeal alleged that the judgment contains a biased and partial analysis of the evidence. This claim is dismissed. As has been noted, the a quo took into consideration a significant amount of evidence, from which it derived the three accused persons' membership in the criminal organization and the functions each performed. The correctness of the interpretation of the evidence carried out by the first-instance body is reserved for the appellate authority, and it is the reason why this Chamber has determined that, of the events described in points 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16, only one of them can be proven, specifically point 4.15. While the interpretation by the trial court is plausible, other equally reasonable theories cannot be ruled out to explain what the interlocutors were talking about in the conversations that support the drug storage events that could not be proven. The foregoing is because the conversation on which fact 4.14 of the accusatory instrument is based is not clear, nor does it provide sufficient data, nor was it linked to any other piece of evidence that would allow other connotations of what was expressed to be ruled out. Meanwhile, the communication offered as proof of point 4.16 actually reinforces the event outlined in point 4.15. The foregoing, however, does not in any way modify the conclusion that the accused are responsible for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering. The defense's complaint seems to stem more from a subjective disagreement with the ruling because it does not align with their clients' interests, a circumstance that is understandable, but which does not in itself detract from the judgment in any way. This Chamber, in exercising its comprehensive review of the decision, was able to verify that the analysis of the evidence was, for the most part, adequate. The aspects with which we disagree with the a quo’s reasoning stem from differences of opinion that are inherent to a procedural model such as the one at hand, but in no way reflect favoritism or bias by the trial court towards any of the parties. The defense claims that substantial parts of the testimonies were omitted, however, this claim was made in a generic manner, without detailing what those omitted aspects were. This Court, in its comprehensive review of the pronouncement, could not determine any circumstance of that nature. The judicial investigators in charge of the inquiries gave a broad and detailed account of the investigative measures conducted regarding these defendants, without noting any relevant information that favored them and that was excluded from the analysis. Furthermore, their accounts were supported by the reports added to the case file. If the defense's intention was directed at establishing that no drugs were confiscated from their clients, that is a detail that was evident from the analysis carried out by the a quo, and which in no way diminishes the possibility of attributing criminal liability to them. As noted, the criminal organization of which the three defendants are a part supplied drugs to other criminal organizations, and it was from the confiscations carried out in those parallel cases that the material proof of the drug transshipments could be obtained. The evaluation of those confiscations is completely valid and feasible in a system of free evaluation of evidence such as ours, so no error is observed in the a quo’s examination for having considered that evidence to attribute criminal liability to the accused. No violation of the principle of correlation between the accusation and the judgment has been verified. The accused facts and those considered proven are, in essence, the same, save for the correction of a material error already referenced. In the intellectual analysis, the a quo undertook a broad examination of the evidence, from which it derived the existence of the organization, its functioning, and the task each defendant performed. No noted circumstance overflows the criminal phenomenon described in the prosecutorial accusation, so it is not true that the defendants were punished for facts not contained in the accusation.\n\nIn other sections of this pronouncement, it has been noted that the intellectual analysis is broad and contemplates a multiplicity of circumstances, because the dynamics of the investigation imposed the need to understand how the organization behaved in general and each of the accused in particular, for which reason a multiplicity of events were reconstructed, although not all are criminal, as occurs, for example, with the action of bringing food to the Buen Pastor Penal Center for the romantic partner of [Name 001]. Such a situation is typical of a proceeding of this nature and does not imply, as the defense states, that there is a conviction for uncharged facts. At all times, the intellectual analysis revolved around the accreditation of the existence of a criminal organization and the determination of the role that each accused played within it, which is consistent with the prosecutorial accusation, hence the defect alleged by the defense is not observed, which in any case was invoked in a generic manner. Based on the foregoing, in the opinion of this Chamber, the appropriate course is to dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, since, as already indicated, although some errors were verified in the analysis of the evidence, these are not of such relevance as to lead to releasing [Name 013], [Name 022], and [Name 015] from criminal liability or that justify a remand to the trial stage. Based on the foregoing, the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Josué Alvarado Zúñiga are hereby dismissed.\n\nXVI. Third ground of appeal filed by M.A. Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused [Name 013], [Name 022], and [Name 015]. He alleges \"Disagreement with the factual determination due to violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment and the adversarial principle regarding the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales)\" [sic]. He indicates that the intellectual reasoning considered uncharged circumstances with respect to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). He argues that the prosecution did not charge said criminal offense against his clients. He highlights that the accusation contains some isolated phrases referring to the crime in question, but in the case of his clients, their participation regarding that criminal activity was not described. He reviews the second statement of fact of the accusation and indicates that it does not describe a concrete action by his clients, but rather the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) in a general manner. He states that the third statement of fact narrates the functions of each member of the organization and attributes to his clients activities related to drug trafficking, but not to money laundering (legitimación de capitales). He points out that in the fifth statement of fact, the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is suggested, but his clients are not mentioned when individualizing the actions carried out by each accused. He asserts that the sixth statement of fact mentions them, regarding the seizures made during the raids, but does not meet the minimum requirements for charging a crime and the Public Ministry, in a bad practice, attempts to portray the seizures derived from the raids as \"accusatory of a crime,\" lacking the necessary verbs to define an action relevant to criminal law. He considers that, given this scenario, his clients could not be convicted of an uncharged crime. He asserts that the adversarial principle was also violated, because in the acquittals section of the judgment, [Name 033] and [Name 007] were released from liability, who were in the same position as his clients. As a grievance, he highlights that his clients were convicted, despite the fact that the judgment lacks details regarding the circumstances of time, manner, and place, coupled with the fact that the decision is not consistent with the charged factual framework, thereby violating the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment, due process, and causing grievance with the imposition of a prison sentence, which is illegitimate. He requests that the ground be granted and the accused be acquitted. Alternatively, that a remand for trial be ordered. Furthermore, he requests the release of his clients, since the pretrial detention measure was imposed as a consequence of the judgment. The ground is dismissed. After analyzing the claim, this Court concludes that the defense is not correct. The factual framework that was held to be accredited in relation to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) consists of the following: \"1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which focused its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Tibás Canton; as well as in some points in the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; zones in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: […] The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for this purpose the use of various means to that end. 3. This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal manner, so each of its members performed specific functions, all directed towards a single end, the commercialization of drugs and the safeguarding of the group over the territories in which they conducted the illicit activity.\n\nAs indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows: […] [Nombre 013]: member of the criminal group, who was one of the trusted persons of the leader [Nombre 001], whose responsibilities included, among other functions, taking charge of the latter's personal security, as well as carrying out custody duties for the drug transports executed by the criminal group; he was also one of those responsible for transmitting the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001] to the remaining members of the organization; on behalf of the latter, he supervised and personally executed the collection and storage of the monies obtained from the drug trafficking activity, for which purpose he used the property owned by his mother as a \"warehouse\" or storage center for illicit supplies of the criminal organization. [Nombre 022]: member of the criminal group, who, in association with the accused ([Nombre 013]), was responsible, among other functions, for the personal security of the latter, as well as for carrying out custody duties for the drug transports executed by the criminal group; he was also another of those responsible for transmitting the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001] to the remaining members of the organization; he executed, under the direction and supervision of the leader, the collection and storage of the monies obtained from the drug trafficking activity […] [Nombre 015]: member of the narco structure, whose responsibilities included, among other functions, providing support in the tasks assigned by the criminal leader to the accused [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022], primarily in the distribution of drug shipments and the collection of the monies derived from the activity inherent to drug trafficking; she was also one of the persons designated in the organization to store and guard supplies belonging to the organization in her home, primarily drug shipments, money, and weapons […] 4.13 As part of the distribution of functions among the members of the criminal group, the group's hierarchy allowed, during the period from 2018 until October 2020, for members of the criminal organization to carry out various functions aimed at the possession and storage of supplies ranging from drugs, money, and firearms; these actions were delegated by the leader of the criminal group [Nombre 001] to the accused [Nombre 022], ([Nombre 013]), and his mother [Nombre 015], and for such purposes they used the dwelling located in [...] , with the accused receiving financial remuneration as payment for this storage action […] 5. During the investigation period from April 2018 until October 2020, the Criminal Organization comprised of the investigated individuals [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 161] (absent), [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046] (deceased), [Nombre 050] (absent), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], as a consequence of the significant illicit profits produced from the serious activity of trafficking and sale of narcotics, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transfer property of economic interest, as well as conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Nombre 001].\n\n6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, the search, registration, and seizure proceedings were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, resulting in the arrest of the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 019], and also seizing evidence that links them directly to the charged acts, as set forth below: [...] 6.6 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located at [...], a dwelling, used by the accused [Name 022], [Name 015] and ([Name 013]), as a domicile and collection center for weapons, drugs, and money, proceeds of drug trafficking: [...] Five hundred twenty-dollar American bills for a total of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars), money that was the product of the criminal activity developed by the criminal group and that was destined to be inserted into the national financial market and that was stored in that property by the accused [Name 022], [Name 015] and ([Name 013])» [sic] (cf. pages 276 to 311 of the judgment). The above excerpt, which consists of the compilation of the relevant facts linking the defendants [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and [Name 015] with the handling of money from drug trafficking, in the opinion of this Chamber does allow deriving circumstances that fit the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). As explained when analyzing the remaining grounds filed on behalf of the defendants, the factual account charged and held as proven at trial places [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and [Name 015] as members of a criminal organization whose main objective was drug trafficking. Facts 1 and 2 frame the existence of that organization, its members, the period of operation, the places where the illicit activities were carried out, and the operational model used. Later, in fact 5, it was noted that this criminal organization also had the objective of carrying out «actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to hide the true nature, origin, destination, the movement and rights over different assets or the ownership of these; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001]», a description that coincides with the formulation adopted in the criminal statute of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), contained in article 69 of Law No. 8204, which, at the date of the facts, stated: «Shall be sanctioned with a prison sentence of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts or transmits assets of economic interest, knowing that these originate in a crime that, within its range of penalties, can be sanctioned with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to hide or cover up the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever hides or covers up the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement or rights over the assets or the ownership of these, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its range of penalties can be sanctioned with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more. The penalty shall be ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, when the assets of economic interest originate in any of the crimes related to the illicit trafficking of narcotics, psychotropic substances, money laundering (legitimación de capitales), diversion of precursors, essential chemical substances and related crimes, conduct classified as terrorist, in accordance with current legislation or when its purpose is the financing of acts of terrorism and terrorist organizations». Evidently, the description of fact 5 is generic and does not detail the concrete actions that the three defendants of interest would have carried out. However, in other sections of the factual account this circumstance is specified. In fact 3, as part of the functions adopted by [Name 004] and [Name 022], as well as by [Name 015], the collection and storage of money derived from the drug trafficking activity is described. This hoarding of money is reiterated in fact 4.13, which also describes that this activity was carried out in the dwelling shared by these persons, the address of which is detailed. Finally, in fact 6.6, it is again mentioned that the defendants used their domicile as a storage center for money from drug trafficking and it is detailed that, on the day of the search, they had in their possession a total of $10,000 from drug trafficking, whose destination was insertion into the national financial market. From the foregoing it is inferred that, contrary to what the appellant party stated, the acts charged and then held as proven do clearly describe the conduct constituting money laundering (legitimación de capitales), specifically the storage of money obtained as a product of drug trafficking in the dwelling shared by the defendants and which would be the action through which ([Name 013]), [Name 022] and [Name 015] hid the origin and destination of that money. Let us remember that to hide is «to conceal, cover up, disguise. We speak of “[…] positive actions of concealing, disguising or covering up, as well as remaining silent about what is known, to prevent knowledge by third parties, of the nature, origin, location, destination, movement or rights over assets from a serious crime or the ownership of the same”. Also included is the hiding of the material substrate of the assets, preventing, for example, the asset from being located at a certain time and space» (Vargas González, Patricia, Una aproximación al delito de legitimación de capitales (Leyes N.° 8204 y 8422). Revista Digital de Ciencias Penales de Costa Rica, No. 1 (32) (13), RDCP-UCR.\n\n2021. Available at https://archivo.revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/RDMCP/article/view/49508). It is true that the specific action attributed to the defendants was not condensed into a single fact or section, which, while desirable, is not essential, because what is relevant is that the factual description allows determining the conduct attributed to the defendant, as well as its temporal, spatial, and modal delimitation. The mentioned information — we reiterate — does emerge from the factual account, because it circumscribes that these actions were carried out in the dwelling of the brothers ([Name 022], [Name 014], [Name 013]) and their mother, located at [...]; in the period between April 2018 and October 2020, but even more precisely, it details that on October 13, 2020, the accused had under their custody $10,000 derived from drug trafficking activity. The defense alleges that the statement of facts does not refer to the typical verbs contained in article 69 of Law No. 8204, which, as already stated, is not true. Fact 5 contains among its verbs that of hiding and this was attributed, among others, to ([Name 013]), [Name 022] and [Name 015]; the manner in which this hiding was carried out is what is clarified in facts 3, 4.13, 6 and 6.6, specifically through the storage in their dwelling of money originating from drug trafficking activity, whose destination was insertion into the national financial market. Given this scenario, the defendants ([Name 013]), [Name 022] and [Name 015] were able to be informed of the attributed acts related to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), in order to exercise their right of defense effectively.\n\nIn that regard, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution no. 2022-1133, of 10:00 hours on November 4, 2022 —which this court shares—, stated that: «[…] the requirements of the accusation established in the criminal procedural rules are established as a guarantee of the right to a defense, such that the accused can anticipate the facts with which they are charged and, in this way, can plan and effectively exercise their right to a defense, thereby excluding the possibility of surprisingly including other aspects not contemplated in the accusatory instrument formulated by the prosecutorial body. In accordance with the foregoing, to satisfy the provision established in Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), it must be considered that the accusation must be explicit regarding the manner in which each of the requirements of the criminal offense definition were carried out. To that end, it is not enough to merely reiterate the elements that are provided for in the offense, but rather the manner in which each of the elements established in the unlawful act developed must be specified […]» (highlighting does not correspond to the original). That requirement for specificity and clarity was adequately and sufficiently satisfied in this case, and therefore the defect alleged by the defense, regarding the lack of imputation of the unlawful act, does not exist.\n\nAt this point, it is necessary to detail that the legal situation of ([Nombre 013]), [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015] was assessed by the lower court (a quo) differently than that of the accused [Nombre 033] and [Nombre 007], because although the latter were included in the general description contained in fact 5 —in the case of [Nombre 033] it was reiterated in fact 3—, no precision was made in another section of the statement of facts specifying what the action of “acquiring, converting, transmitting assets of economic interest” or of “concealing the true nature, origin, destination, movement and rights over different assets or the ownership thereof” consisted of, meaning the imputation in their case was incomplete; that is, their situation is clearly differentiable from the one analyzed in this recital (considerando). Moreover, no violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment (sentencia) or of congruence has been observed. Note that the facts accused coincide with those held as proven. The only variation verified is the suppression of the name of one of the persons mentioned in point 5, which does not generate an essential modification. Regarding the intellectual basis, it was not observed that any circumstance was included that was extraneous to the dynamics of the organization, its mode of operation, and the manner in which the unlawful acts were carried out, and therefore it is not true that unaccused facts were included in that section. It should be noted that this complaint was raised in the appeal (recurso) in a generic manner, without specifying what those circumstances the defense alludes to would be, in order to elicit a more specific response. In any case, as previously indicated, upon conducting a comprehensive examination of the judgment, no error of that nature could be verified. It is logical that, in the reconstruction of the facts of such a complex case, the intellectual analysis encompasses a multiplicity of events surrounding the central core of the action, which allows an understanding of how the criminal organization operated in its daily life. However, this is inherent to the richness of the evidentiary analysis carried out during the trial phase and in no way exceeds the imputation, which revolved around the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) —in addition to simple homicide, in the specific case of [Nombre 010]—. The truth is that, to hold the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) as proven, the judgment (sentencia) considered the membership of the accused persons in the criminal organization, the existence of a prior crime, specifically drug trafficking, which was held as proven based on the actions of supplying other criminal organizations and the intervention of ([Nombre 013]), [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015] in the concealment of money from that activity in their dwelling house (casa de habitación), knowing its unlawful origin, which is precisely the core of the imputation. Based on the considerations set forth, having dismissed the existence of the defects alleged by the defense counsel, the third ground of the challenge (impugnación) brought by the attorney Josué Alvarado Zúñiga is declared without merit (sin lugar).\n\nFourth ground of appeal (apelación) brought by Master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015]. He claims “Lack of substantiation (fundamentación) of the penalty regarding the determination of the amount of the custodial sentence (pena privativa de libertad)”. He details that the judgment (sentencia) imposed on each of his clients a sentence of 20 years of imprisonment (prisión) for the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales), without considering subjective or objective aspects additional to the basic elements of each crime, such that the 2-year increase in imprisonment (prisión) for the crime of drug trafficking is not justified, because it was only said that they were family and that they used the dwelling for the safekeeping of drug caches. He indicates that the charged facts date back approximately nine years and no assessment is observed by the court of the subsequent behavior of the accused up to the present date. He denounces that no consideration was given to the fact that the accused have clean records (limpios antecedentes) and, despite that, a sentence far from the minimum extreme was imposed. As a grievance, he describes that the penalty basis cannot be succinct, nor limited to the mere enumeration of the elements of the offense, but must be sufficient and broad so that all parties are certain of the reasons why it is decided to increase the minimum extreme, especially when dealing with persons with clean records (limpios antecedentes). He asserts that the defective substantiation (fundamentación) causes harm to the defendants, by having to suffer a disproportionate sentence of 20 years of imprisonment (prisión) issued arbitrarily. He requests that the ground be granted (declarado con lugar) and a retrial ordered for a new substantiation. Additionally, he requests that the pretrial detention (prisión preventiva) measure imposed on his clients in the judgment (sentencia) be vacated. The ground is partially granted (parcialmente con lugar). The first thing that must be stated is that the indictees [Nombre 015], [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022] were declared responsible perpetrators of two distinct criminal acts: drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales). For each of them, a sentence of 10 years of imprisonment (prisión) was imposed. However, given that Article 69 of Law No. 8204 provides for a minimum sentence of 10 years for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), when the assets of economic interest originate from drug trafficking, even if potential deficiencies in the substantiation (fundamentación) of the sanction (sanción) could be noted, no harm is caused to the defendants, which is why it is not necessary to delve into that aspect. Regarding the basis set forth for fixing 10 years of imprisonment (prisión) for the crime of drug trafficking, which exceeds the minimum extreme by 2 years, this Chamber has been able to verify that, in effect, the substantiation (fundamentación) of the sanction (sanción) is defective. Note that the lower court (a quo) limited itself to stating the following: “In the case of [Nombre 022], [Nombre 013] and [Nombre 015], it is highly reprehensible to have used the humble dwelling in which they lived as a storage point for money, drugs, and weapons; distorting the character of intimacy that a dwelling implies. In the case of the three accused, although it is true they are family, they used that circumstance against them, that is, it did not prove to be a restraint to prevent their involvement in the commission of crimes. [Nombre 013] has one judgment in his record that should already be considered served, [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015] have no record, that is, the three are persons with clean records (limpios antecedentes), which is valued by the trial chamber (cámara de juicio) in order not to increase the imposed sanction. [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 013] were people who spent most of their time with [Nombre 001] or at his dwelling, which reveals that they were trusted and esteemed persons, which was evident since they participated in practically all of Mr. [Nombre 001]’s transfers, actively participating, and they also had the support of their mother [Nombre 015] who kept them fully informed of the police presence, which is lamentable that it occurs in a family and therefore is very reprehensible” (cf. fs. 986 to 987 of the judgment). It should be noted, in relation to the reasons given by the lower court (a quo), that although it is true that the three indictees are family, that circumstance does not imply that the criminal reproach can be made jointly. Criminal responsibility is personal in nature and for that reason, an individual analysis of each of the accused is required for the determination of the sanction (sanción), based on the parameters outlined in Article 71 of the Penal Code (Código Penal). In this case, the trial court not only made a global reproach for the three accused, but it was limited and generic, since it does not reflect that the aspects set forth in the aforementioned norm (supra), which are of interest for weighing the particular situation of each indictee, were taken into consideration.\n\nIn addition to the foregoing, this Chamber has confirmed that there were errors in the assessment of the evidence and, for that reason, it was concluded that not all of the attributed facts were proven, which equally justifies a new determination of the penalty that must be imposed, based on the circumstances that have been delineated in this ruling. Based on the foregoing, what is appropriate is to declare the ground of appeal under study *partially with merit*; consequently, the 10-year sentence imposed on [Name 013], [Name 022] and [Name 015] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled, and a retrial is ordered for a new determination of that matter, which must be conducted in observance of the principle of non-reformatio in pejus. The 10-year prison sentence imposed for the offense of money laundering remains unaltered. \n- **Sole ground of the challenge filed by [Name 007].** He considers that there is insufficient evidence, erroneous assessment of the facts, as well as of his condition of socioeconomic and personal vulnerability, because his conviction is based solely on the content of the wiretaps, since there is no material, testimonial, or \"operative evidence\" of the activities of storing or selling drugs, which makes the penalty and its foundations disproportionate. He details that the same court acquitted him of the crime of money laundering, because there was no evidence linking him to the acquisition and handling of money. He indicates that no controlled drug purchases were made from him, adding that his condition as a drug addict is confirmed by the wiretaps, so that he finds himself in a state of vulnerability. He states that the wiretaps show that he bought drugs to calm his anxiety, not to sell them. He considers that there was no \"operative validation\" that he actually stored or sold drugs. He believes that the accusation against him is based solely on presumptions derived from the wiretaps, without support in real evidence. He points out that he is in a condition of vulnerability due to drug use and limitations in access to education and health, which is why the analysis of the evidence is biased. He accuses that he was unfairly linked to an act of surveillance at the Vilma Curling Rivera penitentiary center, because a police report was used documenting his presence at that location on May 29, 2019, when he got out of a Mitsubishi Montero vehicle with another person and the court considered he was performing surveillance tasks. He notes that there is no evidence that he entered the prison or performed security functions for any inmate related to the case. He states that the reason his presence at the location implies the commission of the offense of drug trafficking is not explained, yet that circumstance has been used to strengthen the hypothesis that he was part of a criminal organization, despite the fact that the typical result of that crime is not present. He relates that he is a person of scarce resources, with limited income and without access to formal employment. He asserts that the sentence did not adequately assess his social and economic context, a deficiency that places him in a situation of risk and exclusion that hinders his defense. He qualifies the imposed penalty as disproportionate, because there is no harm to the legal right. He maintains that he is a drug user, not a drug trafficker; that his condition has not been considered, despite being a vulnerable person in need of treatment, not a conviction. He describes that no evidence has been presented that he participated in drug distribution; instead, his link to the offense was made based on presumptions derived from poorly interpreted wiretaps or aimed at \"completing an unfinished or indeterminate conviction.\" He affirms that, given his condition, he could not have fulfilled the alleged functions of lookout for the criminal organization. He alleges that there is no material evidence against him, no financial records, documentation, or assets in his name acquired with money of illicit origin. He states that the sentence violates the presumption of innocence that protects him, by being based on inferences and suppositions, not on concrete evidence; furthermore, he was linked to a criminal organization without an active role within it being proven. He argues that the wiretaps cannot be the only evidence for his conviction, but that there must be corroboration with other elements, which did not occur in this case. He maintains that his presence at the Vilma Curling penitentiary center is not related to drug trafficking, because his mere proximity to the site is not an indication of an offense and it was not demonstrated that he performed surveillance or coordination tasks with the criminal organization. He states that the absence of controlled purchases reinforces the non-existence of a crime, because if he had participated in the criminal activity, the police could have made purchases to verify the existence of the offense. He requests that the sentence be annulled and he be acquitted in application of the principle *in dubio pro reo*; or, that his state of vulnerability due to his socioeconomic condition and as a drug user be analyzed, so that alternative sanctions to deprivation of liberty are assessed. In the alternative, he requests a retrial. For the reasons that will be stated, by majority, the ground is declared without merit. After a meticulous analysis of the first instance ruling, the majority of this Chamber concludes that, although the trial court deemed all of the facts attributed to [Name 007], alias \"[Name 109]\", for the offense of drug trafficking to be proven, in reality, based on the intellectual reasoning set forth, these can only be considered duly proven in part, as will be detailed below. As a starting point, it is necessary to outline the facts that the sentence held as proven and that involve said defendant, namely: \"*1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they maintained under their control various properties for storing, distributing, and selling drugs, as well as for receiving money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: • The storage and dosing of the drug shipments acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of shipments to the various points of sale. • The sale of drug shipments owned by the criminal group to other bands based in the national territory.*\n\n• The sale of drug caches belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug-dependent individuals, through the properties held by the organization for \"Bunker\"-type purposes, as well as on the public thoroughfares of the areas under the organization's control. • The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, employing various means for this purpose. 3.- This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal fashion, so that each of its members performed specific functions, all in a single direction: the sale of drugs and the safeguarding of the group over the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows: […] [Nombre 007]: member of the narco structure, who among other functions, under the direction and supervision of the leader of the criminal structure, was responsible for storing and guarding, in the designated properties, supplies belonging to the organization, primarily drug caches and weapons; in addition, he was responsible for carrying out security tasks during the drug deliveries made by the criminal group to another narco structures for the purpose of transfer, supply, and acquisition of the caches. […] 4.23 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Nombre 001] recruited the accused [Nombre 007] to, from the period of April 2018 until October 2020, perform logistics functions typical of the criminal organization, ranging from ensuring the security of the criminal group through surveillance camera monitoring, to the storage of money derived from drug trafficking in his dwelling, actions for which the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.24 On November 1, 2019, in [...], the owned dwelling where the accused [Nombre 007] resided, as part of the actions delegated by the criminal organization regarding the storage of narcotic drugs, he kept under his custody and possession a cache of narcotic drugs, which was destined for sale to third persons. 4.25 On November 11, 2019, in [...], the owned dwelling where the accused [Nombre 007] resided, as part of the actions delegated by the criminal organization regarding the storage of narcotic drugs, he kept under his custody and possession at least one kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride, which was sold to a subject identified by the alias \"[Nombre 187]\", an action that was supervised by the accused [Nombre 161]» [sic] (cf. f. 276 to 290 of the judgment). From the reading of the preceding passage taken from the proven facts —which coincide with the facts accused by the Public Prosecutor's Office—, the following conduct was imputed to the defendant [Nombre 007]: (i) security tasks for the criminal group, in two forms: through surveillance cameras and during the group's drug deliveries to other organizations; (ii) storage and custody of the organization's supplies, specifically drugs, weapons, and money. It should be noted that the court of first instance (a quo) acquitted [Nombre 007] of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), considering that it was not properly imputed, a point that was not appealed by the Public Prosecutor's Office, and therefore it is an aspect that has become final. Regarding the tasks imputed and for which a conviction was issued, in the opinion of this Court, the storage and custody of drugs for the criminal organization was duly established, but not the remaining actions attributed to [Nombre 007]. With respect to the security tasks, although the evidence indicates that he did indeed fulfill functions of that nature, the fact is that they do not fit the imputation made by the Public Prosecutor's Office, since that body specifically circumscribed them to the moments when drug deliveries were made to other structures and also included a modal element: \"through the observation of surveillance cameras\". The reasoning set forth by the court of first instance (a quo) to determine the criminal liability of the defendant is contained in the section «Facts against [Nombre 007], who was recruited by [Nombre 001] and supervised by [Nombre 161]» (cf. f. 621). The analysis begins with the connection of [Nombre 007], alias \"[Nombre 109]\", with other members of the criminal structure, to determine his belonging to it. In that sense, it is verified that, in effect, he maintained constant telephone contact with [Nombre 010], [Nombre 029], and the brothers [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022]. Furthermore, his servility and submission with respect to [Nombre 001] was evident, to the point that he had to request authorization from him to visit him and to move from the places where he was assigned.\n\nIn that regard, sequence 0337010, of the intercepted line [Value 100], at 20:42 hours on February 4, 2019: «[Name 109] called [Name 124], [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124], [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124] said – hello, [Name 109] said – hello, [Name 124] said – speak to me, [Name 109] said – hey man where are you?, [Name 124] said – inside why?, do you need something?, [Name 109] said – man tell that guy if I can come over for a bit, [Name 124] said – okay, [Name 109] said – tell him, tell him so we can go right away, [Name 109] said – (mentions something that is not understood) bastard maybe, [Name 109] said – ah, but tell him man so that, so we can see if he says to go or not man because maybe he says no or something like that because I have to be here, [Name 124] said – ask him, you idiot, come on, [Name 109] said – ah, [Name 124] said – come on, come on, ask him, [Name 109] said – no man because later he tells me no, that I should stay there and he chews me out, tell him man, [Name 124] said – what a pain, he's chickening out then saica, they continue talking without interest. The communication ends» (Highlighting supplied). As has been indicated in different sections of this pronouncement, when the defendants mentioned \"that guy\" they were referring to [Name 001]. The use of the term was intended to avoid using his name so as not to expose him, as part of the clandestine nature with which they operated. Now, regarding the security tasks attributed to the defendant and which, according to the section of proven facts, were limited to drug transfers, as well as to the verification of surveillance cameras, the judgment lacks evidentiary support. Nowhere in the ruling is it specifically established that the defendant carried out camera verification in order to transfer information to the other accused parties. The judgment does conclusively indicate that the organization had people performing this function, but it does not identify [Name 007] as one of them, nor does it contain an evidentiary analysis that allows this to be derived (in that regard, see f. 358). Concerning security tasks during drug transfers, the lower court's ruling also does not offer categorical conclusions; rather, the evidence examined seems to allude to moments when the criminal organization was carrying out transfers of [Name 001], as can be inferred from the following communications: sequence 0305849, at 12:13 hours on December 14, 2018. [Name 007], alias «[Name 109]», provides information to [Name 010], who is traveling with [Name 001] —he is heard off-phone—, about the condition of the route they are traveling. In a similar vein, sequence 0008581, at 22:43 hours on December 12, 2018, in which «[Name 083]» and «[Name 109]» talk about the fact that the latter had to be in a certain place because they were taking \"that guy\". Also, sequence 0339535, at 19:58 hours on February 8, 2019, in which «[Name 109]» told «[Name 123]» «here comes that guy, because [Name 083] is already asking about the group, how everything looks» [sic]. The judgment does not specify if on any of these occasions a drug mobilization by the criminal group was actually taking place; in fact, it is logical that they would not have done so because it would pose a risk to [Name 001], who acted with extreme care and in clandestinity. Beyond these communications, the remaining ones considered are also not sufficient for those purposes. Thus, there is sequence 0308331, at 18:41 hours on November 19, 2018, in which «[Name 109]» informs [Name 010] that there is a mobilization of people towards the Garabito sector, probably some police force, and sequence 0340718, at 17:04 hours on February 10, 2019, in which «[Name 109]» asked a third party about police presence, which is easily deduced because he refers to them as «Cops». Although the alertness of those under investigation and their desire not to be detected by the authorities is evident, it cannot be clearly inferred from these telephone contacts that at the time the communications occurred, drugs were being moved; consequently, the threshold of doubt is not overcome. Although the collusion of [Name 007] with the remaining members of the criminal organization and his willingness to participate in the transfers of [Name 001] to safeguard his personal integrity is clear and evident, that function was not charged against him. However, the information generated is useful, insofar as it places the defendant as an active member of the organization, who not only knows about but habitually participates in its dynamics. Regarding the second conduct attributed to the defendant, specifically the storage of drugs, it is necessary to point out that this was duly accredited, although two specific facts, described in the factual account charged, specifically in points 4.24 and 4.25, were not proven. The foregoing in no way diminishes the possibility of attributing criminal responsibility to the defendant, because in the charged fact 3, which describes the functions each defendant carried out, it was stated that [Name 007]: «under the direction and supervision of the leader of the criminal structure, was responsible for storing and guarding, in designated properties, supplies belonging to the organization, primarily drug caches.» Regarding this task, the judgment indicates: «In the same way, drug custodial functions as evidenced by the following calls: “From [Value 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0059461. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Value 088]. This call was made at 21:27 hours on January 28, 2019. [Name 083] called [Name 109] and said – where are you?, [Name 109] said – here by my place, [Name 083] said – at your mom's?, [Name 109] said – yes here by my house, at my mom's, [Name 083] said – okay I'll come by so you can pass it to me or bring me, bring me one here to the house, the only one you have, [Name 109] said – okay okay buddy but don't tell me that stuff man, it's that (it is not understood) [Name 083] said – what did I say?, [Name 109] said – okay. I'll come by, [Name 083] said – ok I'm here at my place, oh no look, [Name 109] said – what, [Name 083] said – I'll see you there better at la uno, the car is there, [Name 109] said – okay, [Name 083] said – ok. Communication ends. From [Value 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0059467. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Value 088]. This call was made at 21:38 hours on January 28, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 083] called [Nombre 109] and the latter told him –I'm on my way, I'm getting the stuff, [Nombre 083] said –well hurry up, don't you see they're already there, you idiot, [Nombre 109] said –yeah, yeah, I'm coming, I was just talking to some guy there, [Nombre 083] said –ok. Call ended\". It should not be forgotten that the person with whom [Nombre 007] is speaking is [Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\", who was the designated person for the distribution of drug shipments to other criminal organizations; it is for this reason that it is inferred from the context of the call that alias \"[Nombre 109]\" has custody of a drug shipment and [Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" asks him to deliver it to him, so much so that alias \"[Nombre 083]\" tells him that it is the only one he had in custody, to which alias \"[Nombre 109]\" tells him in the second call that he is already getting it out. The event described above occurred on January 28, 2019; however, on February 9, 2019, the dynamic repeats itself. To reach such a conclusion, it is sufficient to analyze the following calls: \"From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0005632. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Valor 088]. This call was made at 14:36 hours on February 9, 2019. [Nombre 083] called [Nombre 109] and told him –man, [Nombre 109] said –hello, [Nombre 083] said –bring me one to the house, [Nombre 109] said –downstairs?, [Nombre 083] said –yeah, to my house downstairs; they say goodbye. Call ended. From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0006386. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Valor 088]. This call was made at 23:20 hours on February 9, 2019. [Nombre 083] called [Nombre 109] and told him –man, be alert because I'll let you know in a bit so you can pass me another one, [Nombre 109] said –uh-huh, okay okay, just send me a message then, [Nombre 083] said –yeah, because they pay tomorrow so the deal is going down early tomorrow so tomorrow there will be sticks, [Nombre 109] said –uh-huh, okay then, see, send me a message and what, do I meet you downstairs the same?, [Nombre 083] said –yeah, uh-huh, at my house; they say goodbye. Call ended\". Clearly, once alias \"[Nombre 083]\" asks alias \"[Nombre 109]\" to bring him one to the house, and in the next call tells him to be alert because he will soon ask him to bring another, there is no doubt that it deals with the context of the drug packages that alias \"[Nombre 109]\" was guarding and which alias \"[Nombre 083]\" was in charge of marketing to other organizations, so much so that in the second call they discuss that for the following day there would be sticks, which in the coded language used by the organization refers to a large amount of money, properly millions. (Highlighting supplied. Cf. folios 629 to 631 of the judgment). This Chamber considers that the conclusion reached by the a quo was correct, by virtue of the fact that the preceding communications, evaluated jointly with the remaining findings of the investigation, allow the inference that, in effect, when these occurred, [Nombre 007] was guarding drugs for the organization. Several aspects must be highlighted: the first is that the highlighted communications are held by [Nombre 007] with alias \"[Nombre 083]\", who is none other than [Nombre 029], who was clearly linked to the function of transporting drugs for supply to other organizations —a broad discussion of his criminal participation was made in recital X of this ruling—. The second aspect that stands out is the time of the communications, specifically 21:27 hours and 21:38 hours. This detail is relevant because it was proven that, as part of the measures taken by the organization to avoid being discovered, [Nombre 029] made the drug deliveries at nightfall or the early morning, so the time of the phone contacts is consistent with that dynamic. Third, the accused agreed to meet at the site where a vehicle was located, at the request of alias \"[Nombre 083]\". The investigation carried out made it possible to establish with total certainty that [Nombre 029] carried out the drug transports in the Mitsubishi brand, Montero style vehicle, license plate [Valor 068], so the information derived from the communications is consistent with the preparations for a subsequent drug transfer. The fourth point is that alias \"[Nombre 083]\" pressures alias \"[Nombre 109]\" to bring him the object that he holds in his possession as soon as possible, by expressly stating \"hurry up, don't you see they're already there, you idiot\", so it is evident that what he is going to receive from [Nombre 007] he will then deliver to third parties, who would already be waiting for it. In this context, then, it is possible to agree with the a quo, regarding that when [Nombre 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" asks [Nombre 007], alias \"[Nombre 109]\", to bring him \"one here to the house, the only one you have\", they are referring to a drug package that was under the latter's custody. On February 9, 2019, as stated by the a quo, a similar interaction occurred between both accused. On that occasion, in the afternoon hours, alias \"[Nombre 083]\" asks \"[Nombre 109]\" to bring him one to the \"house\", which is a colloquial expression to refer to his home. That same day during the night, specifically at 23:20, [Nombre 029] informs ([Nombre 007]) that he needs him to pass him another one. Now, from this new coordination between the subjects, another piece of data of interest emerges, which can be stated as the fifth: alias \"[Nombre 083]\" indicates that \"the deal is going down early tomorrow so tomorrow there will be sticks\". The investigation also made it possible to determine that the payment for the drug deliveries made by [Nombre 029] was received by him in cash, so it is then completely consistent that in this communication he indicated to ([Nombre 007]) that the next day there would be \"sticks\", which in colloquial language is a way of referring to money. This reference was confirmed in sequence 0336893, in which a third party asks alias \"[Nombre 109]\" if the sticks came in and he indicates yes, and that they gave him 25 canes. Also in sequence 0338705, in which he speaks with [Nombre 022] about going to change \"sticks\", which is consistent with the currency exchange dynamic executed by some members of the organization, among them precisely [Nombre 022]. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the evidentiary assessment carried out by the a quo, regarding those phone contacts, is fully coincident with the remaining evidence that was gathered in the process and the dynamic reconstructed regarding the supply of drugs to other organizations. Under the foregoing position, it is possible to infer then that, in the following communications, as detailed by the a quo, [Nombre 007] and [Nombre 022] are hiding drugs belonging to the criminal organization in the first's home: \"From [Valor 100]. Call identified with sequence number 0341609. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone line [Valor 086]. This call was made at 23:13 hours on February 11, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 109] called [Nombre 123], extra telephone [Nombre 109] said - (cannot understand what he mentions) write down your number for me here, the pump, [Nombre 123] said - hello, [Nombre 109] said - what, [Nombre 123] said - tell me, [Nombre 109] said - what, extra telephone [Nombre 083] said - well and how are you going to call me then (mentions something that cannot be understood), [Nombre 083] told [Nombre 123] - mae, extra telephone something was said that was not understood, [Nombre 123] said - what, [Nombre 109] said - hello, mae look go over there by my place, get on all fours to lower a thing there, [Nombre 123] said - by your place, [Nombre 109] said - if you call me put it on, [Nombre 123] said - no no but it's all good here the neighborhood doesn't see anything anything, [Nombre 109] said - go to the alley you idiot, [Nombre 123] said - okay you piece of stupid mae you son of a bitch. The communication ended. From [Valor 100]. Call identified with sequence number 0341610. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone line [Valor 086]. This call was made at 23:16 hours on February 11, 2019. [Nombre 123] called [Nombre 109], [Nombre 109] said - hello, [Nombre 123] said - all good mae, [Nombre 109] said - okay there we go, where are you?, [Nombre 123] said - right here in the alley here mae. The communication ended\" [sic] (cf. page 637 of the judgment). The time of the communications again coincides with the time when the members of the organization carried out drug movements to minimize the risk of being discovered. By virtue of the foregoing, it is reiterated, this Chamber agrees that the function of storage and custody of drugs attributed to [Nombre 007] was correctly accredited in the judgment, in the terms that were imputed to him in the third fact of the accusation.\n\nHaving clarity on the above, it must be pointed out that, even though it is considered possible to sustain that function, this Chamber considers that the events described in points 4.24 and 4.25 do not correspond to the evidence that supports them, because the content of the communications considered does not allow inferring the circumstances of time, manner, and place described in those events. Observe, in this regard, sequence 0328187, from 14:13 hours on November 1, 2019, in which [Nombre 007] tells a third party named [Nombre 002] \"mae why don't you come for a bit and take the car out of the garage of '[Nombre 190]' mae, it's just to store something for the boss mae, it's not that no one can see there and there are a lot of people, [Nombre 002] said -aaah okay, okay, [Nombre 007] said -it's just a bit to put the thing in and the car takes off with the thing, so no one sees, [Nombre 002] said -okay papi, [Nombre 007] said -okay\" (cf. page 644 of the judgment). In fact 4.24 it was described that [Nombre 007] had a stash of narcotics stored in his dwelling; however, the communication transcribed above does not allow inferring that circumstance. Note that the accused made no reference to his domicile, but rather requests that a motor vehicle be taken out of the dwelling of a subject he identifies as \"[Nombre 190]\", so what actually seems to happen is that the accused is going to store an object of an illicit nature —which could indeed be drugs, given that storage and custody was part of his functions— but in the vehicle he asks to be moved and which will then leave the site. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers then, that the circumstances described in point 4.24 of the accusatory piece, given their degree of specificity, were not duly verified from that communication. A similar situation occurs with the following event, specifically the one recorded in point 4.25. In sequence 0205183, from 21:54 hours on November 11, 2019, the following dialogue was generated: \"[Nombre 161] alias '[Nombre 083]' received a call from [Nombre 007] alias '[Nombre 109]', user of the telephone line [Valor 088]. [Nombre 225] said -hello, [Nombre 007] said -'[Nombre 083]', [Nombre 225] said -yes, [Nombre 007] said -mae, [Nombre 187], the nephew of [Nombre 099], came here for a baby, ask that mae to see, [Nombre 225] said -who is it, [Nombre 007] said -[Nombre 187] the nephew of [Nombre 099], that [Nombre 099] sent him for a baby [Nombre 225] said -well tell him not yet, I'll let him know in a bit, that mae isn't there, [Nombre 007] said -but the guy told me something like that, [Nombre 225] said -but no mae, that mae isn't there and he hasn't told me anything dude, I'm not going to deliver anything to anyone, besides I think there's nothing yet right now, tell him I'll let him know, [Nombre 007] said mae but that mae has one stored from [Nombre 099] mae, that has to be delivered to him, [Nombre 225] said -but until that mae comes, I'm not going to deliver shit if that mae doesn't tell me mae, [Nombre 007] said -but can't you ask him, don't you have his PIN, [Nombre 225] said -he's busy right now mae, tell him we'll look for him in a bit, when that mae comes\" [sic] (Highlighting supplied. Cf. page 645 of the judgment). Although it is clear that in that communication [Nombre 007] and [Nombre 161] talk about cocaine-type drugs, because they use the term \"baby\" which is the form of coded language with which the members of the organization referred to that material —see the resolution of the grounds for appeal filed on behalf of [Nombre 029]—, the information derived from it does not allow deducing that this \"baby\" was in the possession of ([Nombre 007]), specifically in his dwelling house and that he delivered it to the person identified by the subjects as \"[Nombre 187]\". From the communication it is inferred rather, that the subject \"[Nombre 187]\" made the request for a \"baby\", that is, drugs, to ([Nombre 007]) and he informs [Nombre 225], who is reluctant to deliver it and indicates, first, that he is not going to make any delivery without permission and second, that he does not know if there is any, to which [Nombre 007] responds \"mae but that mae has one stored from [Nombre 099] mae, that has to be delivered to him\". From the indicated communication it seems to follow, in reality, that the drug was not in the possession of [Nombre 007], although he fully knew its whereabouts —which is inferred from the indication: \"that mae has one stored\"— and for that reason requests authorization to be able to deliver it to the subject identified as \"[Nombre 187]\". So, again the information is dissimilar to the very restrictive circumstances of the accusation, set forth in point 4.25, according to which, the drug was in the dwelling of [Nombre 007]. However, the communication is of great relevance to establish the knowledge and full involvement of said defendant in the criminal activity of trafficking illicit substances. Finally, the judgment also held as proven that [Nombre 007] stored money in his domicile. In that sense the following sequences: 0336891, from 16:43 hours on February 4, 2019. \"[Nombre 109]\" asks \"[Nombre 123]\" if they are going to change money and the latter tells him that the neighborhood is \"suspicious\", by which it is understood that it is not calm; 0337398, from 14:14 hours on February 5, 2019.\n\n\"[Name 109]\" and \"[Name 123]\" again talk about going to \"exchange\"; 0338705, at 14:49 hours on February 7, 2019. \"[Name 123]\" tells \"[Name 109]\" to get ready to go exchange \"sticks\"; 0338571, at 11:05 hours on February 7, 2019. \"[Name 109]\" tells a female, apparently his sentimental partner, to give money to a third party and indicates that he has money in the room and expressly refers to \"large bills\"; 0358729, at 13:47 hours on March 2, 2019 and 0358730, at 13:48 hours on March 2, 2019, \"[Name 083]\" asks \"[Name 109]\" to go to the place where the former is and to bring \"cash\". Despite the foregoing, the defendant was acquitted of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) and the judgment does not explain that said custody had a purpose other than those described in numeral 69 of Law No. 8204; rather, it merely indicates, in a generic manner, that it was intended for the protection of money from possible robberies or \"rip-offs,\" thereby seeming to allude, in a cursory manner, to the exhaustion phase of the drug trafficking crime, without clearly arguing from where that conclusion derives. Given the lack of challenge to that point, the acquittal for the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) has become final with respect to [Name 007]. As a corollary, this Court concludes that the facts attributed to [Name 007] were partially proven, since his function of storing and guarding drugs was fully established; but not that of providing security, in the terms that were attributed—by means of surveillance cameras—. Because both functions are part of the same crime, specifically aggravated drug trafficking, what corresponds then is the declaration without merit of the appeal managed by the material defense, insofar as his criminal liability as a co-perpetrator remains unchanged. Based on the reasons set forth, which correspond to the criteria of the majority of this Court, the ground is declared without merit. Despite the foregoing, it is appropriate, on the court's own motion, to annul the imposed penalty and order the remand for a new substantiation of that point, insofar as the criminal reproach was made in consideration of the totality of the accused facts, so a new discussion of that point is then required, based on the circumstances delimited herein. At that opportunity, the principle prohibiting reform for the worse must be observed. Judge Escalante Quirós issues a dissenting vote.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With profound respect, I depart from the vote of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, because although the decision was to declare the challenge without merit, the criminal liability of [Name 007] was reduced by exonerating him from a part of the facts proven in the judgment (the surveillance tasks during drug transfers and facts numbered 4.24 and 4.25), maintaining his conviction only for the storage and custody of drugs for the criminal organization, in accordance with the third fact. On the contrary, upon declaring without merit the sole ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Name 007], I am of the thesis that his conviction must remain intact. The trial court established as proven that the defendant [Name 001], leader of the criminal group, in the context of the common plan and the division of functions of the pyramidal structure of the criminal network, designated [Name 007] to perform surveillance—security—and drug storage functions between April 2018 and October 2020. Specifically, he was convicted for two drug trafficking events detailed as having occurred on November 1 and 11, 2019. Now, in my opinion, the conviction decision of ([Name 007]) was not based exclusively on the content of the communications that refer to the cited dates of November 2019, but rather the *a quo* weighed more evidence and did so in the context of the criminal network as a whole. In this regard, I am of the thesis that, in the environment of a complex criminal organization like the one led by [Name 001], individual materializations of what is captured in each telephone intervention should not be required, since it is clear that in view of the considerable size that this criminal network had, the essential contributions of its members, even when they only seem to be inferred from one or several phone calls, must be contextualized in light of the rest of the evidence but, above all, determining whether a particular person is an active and permanent part of the structure or not. This can be inferred, within the framework of evidentiary freedom, from the analysis of the evidence referring to the participation of other defendants, provided that proven links exist between the specific criminal acts and the persons. Upon transferring that to the case of ([Name 007]), if his conviction was based on the events of November 1 and 11, 2019, this was not extracted solely from the jurisdictionally intercepted communications, since the court clearly did not ignore the rest of the evidence that, as a whole, allowed [Name 007] to be linked with other members of the criminal network—understood as co-perpetrators—. Precisely that is what, in my opinion, was developed in the judgment, specifically regarding the determination of the facts for which ([Name 007]) was convicted. Starting from page 621 of the ruling, the *a quo* set forth a meticulous analysis of the evolution of the telephone intervention, in order to illustrate at what moment the participation of [Name 007] was detected, which was well before November 2019, which consisted of an evident collusion as a co-perpetrator in the illicit drug trafficking business. The judgment stated this by citing sequences of the intervention, such as numbers 318469, 305849, 17911, 26760, 8581, 31718, 308331 and 29356, from which the link of ([Name 007]) with the defendants [Name 010], alias “[Name 083]”, [Name 001] and alias “[Name 124]” or “[Name 124]” is evident. Of special relevance, in accordance with the criteria I have set forth, is that the trial court on the merits established the evident connection between [Name 007] and other defendants whose co-perpetration in drug trafficking was proven, as was the case of ([Name 004]) and [Name 161].\n\nNote that all this evidentiary analysis, which I consider is indeed in the section of the ruling dedicated to the criminal liability of ([Nombre 007]), made it possible to link him as an active member of the criminal network and, therefore, constitutes the jurisdictional development of the inferences (indicios) which, added to the elements of conviction arising from the wiretaps, which contain the detail of the criminal events of November 1 and 11, 2019, led to affirming the conviction decision for [Nombre 007]. In addition, the deciding body also extracted [Nombre 007]'s participation from report number IP-128-EN-19, from which it was inferred the functions he had within the criminal organization, as well as his closeness to the leader [Nombre 001]. This was also supported by the call described in sequence 38180, along with the important content of number 348164 where ([Nombre 007]) himself acknowledges that he works for [Nombre 001]. Likewise, the judgment elaborates on report number IP-33-EN-19, where the drug transport carried out by [Nombre 029] with the support of “[Nombre 083]” and [Nombre 007] was documented. Precisely here, an essential link examined by the judgment must be assessed, which consists of the explanation of why it was interpreted – correctly in my view – that the events of November 1 and 11, 2019, corresponded to drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas) actions. As indicated, the court weighed the link of the accused [Nombre 007] with the criminal network, based on the analysis of evidence other than the wiretap, from which it was reasonably inferred that [Nombre 007] was indeed referring to drugs and that he did so in the full exercise of his role as co-perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking, to which the criminal organization was dedicated for years. In the ninth and tenth considerandos of this decision, the challenges in favor of the defendant ([Nombre 004]) were unanimously declared without merit, thus identifying that his conviction for the crime against public health was correctly proven by the a quo. This is very important precisely because, as indicated, the court first evidentiarily established the connection between [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 007], in order to first contextualize and later understand the events of November 1 and 11, 2019. As I indicated supra, it is not about isolating the defendants and assessing whether their criminal participation only arises from a wiretap, because that would only be correct in a case different from this one, where there was no complex criminal network that divided up the functions and, therefore, where the facts are proven from the common union of the elements of conviction. Thus, in organized crime cases like the one sub examine, it is evident that some defendants will only be linked – in principle – by a certain type of evidence, for example surveillance or intercepted calls, while some others will be the ones who illustrate the materializations, for example transport or sales that end in drug seizures, at the same time that other persons who are part of the same network will only appear in security or custody tasks, for example protecting leaders and/or stashes. Therefore, if the existence of the criminal organization was proven, its considerable permanence over time and its size, the complexity of the structure and with it the particular way in which the tasks that, within the common plan, were deemed essential to carry out the crimes were distributed, it is clear that some co-perpetrators will only be linked by a certain type of evidence, from which it is evident, in my opinion, that the traditional rules of evidence assessment are broken, because these are not equally traditional illegal acts but rather modern and intricate organized crime structures. Consequently, if the court assessed a multitude of evidence, among them the testimonies of the judicial investigators, police reports, drug seizures and wiretaps; from all that evidentiary survey it is valid, from my point of view, to link those who clearly form an active part of the criminal network, the relevant point being that, as in this case, the wiretap is not the sole source of evidentiary elements. In line with the foregoing, at this point in the resolution it has become clear that the a quo broadly and correctly substantiated the criminal liability of the group leader [Nombre 001], as well as of one of the co-perpetrators closest to the top, [Nombre 029]. Emphasis is placed on ([Nombre 004]), precisely because, as indicated before, the court explains the active role of ([Nombre 007]) mainly through his direct link with [Nombre 029], colluding in surveillance tasks in the locality of León XIII, as well as in the custody of [Nombre 001]'s transport and in drug trafficking. This being the case, having accused ([Nombre 007]) that his specific participation was on November 1 and 11, 2019, this was not only explained from the content of the wiretaps that detail it, but that criminal behavior can only be understood in this way, based on the entire evidentiary assessment, especially that which links [Nombre 001] and ([Nombre 004]) in direct, clear, and evident concert with ([Nombre 007]) in the illicit business of drug trafficking to which they were dedicated. The ruling indicates that [Nombre 029] carried out criminal activities under the leadership of [Nombre 001], from April 2018 until October 2020, having demonstrated in the judgment several materializations, among them the one related to the sale of drugs to the network of ([Nombre 099]) through ([Nombre 137]) (case 18000017-1219-PE), as well as with another crime of drug supply that occurred in Aserrí in May 2019 (case 19-014179-0042-PE). These facts were proven in the judgment based on testimonial evidence – the statement of the investigators –, police reports, surveillance, raids and drug seizures; all of which, in the case of [Nombre 007], was linked to his communications of November 1 and 11, 2019, based on the proven nexus he had with [Nombre 001] and with [Nombre 029], precisely in surveillance, custody and drug trafficking activities. Although the accusation and the proven facts of the judgment indicate that the surveillance was carried out by means of surveillance cameras, I consider that, since that specific mode of proceeding with that function was not demonstrated, the surveillance as such, which was indeed demonstrated, subsists; hence, if the referred modal circumstance were hypothetically removed, the foundation of the ruling remains intact because it was indeed demonstrated that [Nombre 007] performed surveillance tasks for the narco gang.\n\nIn summary, from my point of view, the determination of the facts for which [Nombre 007] was convicted was not made solely and exclusively from judicially intercepted calls, but rather the judgment explains and understands what was said in those communications, based on their joint analysis with the rest of the evidence, especially due to his connection with [Nombre 029] and with [Nombre 001]. For this reason, my vote is to declare the sole ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Nombre 007] without merit, maintaining his criminal liability intact as determined by the a quo.-\n\nXIX. First ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, in favor of the defendant [Nombre 010]. He alleges “Erroneous intellectual basis due to erroneous assessment of the evidence regarding the determination of the fact” with respect to the simple homicide attributed to [Nombre 010]. He maintains that his client did not participate in the homicide of [Nombre 180]. He indicates that the accreditation of the crime was made based on two telephone communications in which one of the interlocutors was the defendant [Nombre 010]. He refers that his client admitted in the debate to being one of the persons participating in the conversation captured on the telephone line [Valor 106] of Mrs. [Nombre 192]. After an in extenso transcription of the judgment's intellectual basis, he states that the reasoning of the a quo to determine his client's participation in the events is the product of an incorrect assessment of the evidence, because it is not possible to reach a state of certainty, despite the existence of the aforementioned communications. He argues that, from the argumentation contained in the judgment, it is inferred that both the deceased's mother and a third person were present when the event occurred and neither of them identified the perpetrator, neither during the investigation stage nor at trial. He questions that, according to the interview conducted with these persons —contained in police reports—, it can be deduced that the perpetrator of the crime never entered the dwelling, which is corroborated by the ocular inspection (inspección ocular) and collection of ballistic evidence, reason why the affirmation of the a quo, in the sense that the accused entered the dwelling, under the protection of one of the communications, is misguided. He assures that, just as the accused stated at trial, in the communication he was merely boasting about an act he did not commit. He adds that the analysis carried out by the court, based on the second of the communications, in which his client expressed “he played with fire and got burned,” is incorrect, because according to the court the expression is characteristic of someone who enters into danger or exposes themselves to harmful consequences. He details that, according to what was narrated by the accused in the debate, he never received threats from [Nombre 180]. He adds that the police report details that the accused claimed not to recognize the perpetrator of the homicide of “[Nombre 172]”. He assures that “[Nombre 180] would think or thought, why am I going to harm a person who has not harmed me, that is to say [Nombre 010], despite being an eyewitness to the murder of [Nombre 172], he never identified any person, much less [Nombre 180]” [sic]. He maintains that the officers of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial) in charge of the investigation of the homicide of alias “[Nombre 172]”, in an “insidious” manner, made his client believe that the now deceased would possibly attempt against his life. He analyzes that, between the place where the homicide occurred —León XIII— and the accused's dwelling —Santo Domingo Las Cuestas—, there is a considerable distance. He details that there is technical evidence related to the use of the cell phone attributed to the defendant that gives solidity to the defense's position, in the sense that [Nombre 010] did not commit the crime. He questions that the statement of [Nombre 183] was discredited, who affirmed having witnessed the events and that [Nombre 010] was not the responsible party. As a grievance, he states that the disregard of the rules of sound criticism caused a sentence of 18 years of imprisonment to be handed down against his client, to the detriment of his freedom of movement. He requests that his client be acquitted and his release be ordered. In the alternative, he requires the case to be sent back for a new proceeding. The ground is declared without merit. Contrary to what was affirmed by the technical defense, this Court considers that the intellectual basis set out in the appealed judgment, regarding the homicide of the minor [Nombre 180], is sufficient, adequate, and in accordance with the law. According to the proven factual framework, the events occurred on November 17, 2018, at approximately 3:00 p.m., in the Ciudadela León XIII, Tibás, when the aggrieved person was at his home, a place where the defendants [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] (absent) arrived aboard a motorcycle and immediately the first of them got off the motor vehicle, went towards the victim, and shot at him with a 9mm caliber firearm, managing to hit him thirteen times, in the head, neck, thorax, and extremities, which caused his death at the site as a result of a brain laceration. To link the accused [Nombre 010], alias “[Nombre 195]”, to the crime, the trial court took into consideration the following circumstances: (i) Link of the accused to the criminal organization led by alias “[Nombre 084]” from the beginning of the investigation, as responsible for providing security and protection to [Nombre 001], as recorded in report IP-297-EN-18 (cfr. volume I, pages 1 to 87 of the investigation file) and was related at trial by the officers of the Judicial Investigation Agency in charge of the inquiries, which led to the interception of his telephone communications being ordered. (ii) Identification of [Nombre 161], alias “[Nombre 083]”, as another member of the criminal organization, related to [Nombre 010], for performing similar functions to him. Thus, in report IP-297-EN18 it is noted that both accused had photographs together on their social networks (cfr. p. 33); furthermore, that on June 27, 2018, they appeared at the National Arsenal so that [Nombre 010] could recover a previously seized firearm. Likewise, during the course of the investigation, communications between the two were captured. (iii) Statement of [Nombre 196], an officer of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), who, in what is relevant, stated that he was in charge of the initial attention of the homicide scene, where he could observe shell casings on the stairs and sidewalk of the property; also that the victim's body was between the gate and the access door to the dwelling. On the other hand, he referred that another female person was at the site (cfr. p. 148 of the judgment). (iv) Statement of [Nombre 197], judicial investigator of the Extraordinary Duty Investigations Section, who attended the scene, where he found 9mm bullet casings, on the sidewalk forming part of the public road and in the corridor of the dwelling. He detailed that the body was between the entrance and the living room. Likewise, he pointed out that the victim's mother was at the place, who told him that the perpetrators of the crime were two persons dressed in dark suits, without helmets; furthermore, that her son received a phone call asking him to come out and that it was at that moment that the event occurred. He added that in the dwelling there was also a woman, who was hit in her [Nombre 124]. (v) Statement of [Nombre 198], who was accompanying [Nombre 197] and gave a similar version to his. Regarding the location of the body, he said it was at the end of the corridor and entering the dwelling. He located the offended party's mother and another woman at the place. He pointed out that, according to the mother's version, the perpetrators arrived at the site on a motorcycle. (vi) Statement of [Nombre 199], an investigator of the Ocular Inspections and Evidence Collection Section, who stated that he found ballistic evidence from the public road to the final position of the body. Furthermore, he located at least eight bullet holes in the plastic sheet of the access gate and six more in the dwelling, which evidenced a movement from the outside to the inside; in addition, traces of smoke staining on the acrylic sheet, indicating the proximity at which the shots were fired. (vii) Statement of [Nombre 133], who referred to the motive for the homicide that was being handled at the police level. At trial, he alluded to the interview conducted with various witnesses, who would have referred that the offended minor had a romantic relationship with a woman with the alias “[Nombre 200]” and that he had killed her previous partner, in the presence of [Nombre 010] and a subject known as [Nombre 151], reason why he wanted to end the lives of the latter for being the witnesses to the event. (viii) Statement of [Nombre 092], a judicial investigator who recounted the investigation proceedings carried out. He reported on the content of the communications captured from [Nombre 010], in which he informed his romantic partner and a third party who was confined in a penal center, about the homicide of the minor and the connection of that information with the other elements of evidence.\n\n(ix) Police report 28-SH/CI-2020, which records the investigative proceedings and notes the motive for the homicide, specifically the death of [Nombre 202], alias \"[Nombre 172]\", who prior to his death had a romantic relationship with [Nombre 203], alias \"[Nombre 200]\". The investigation into that homicide was processed under summary proceeding no. 18-02653-0042-PE. The report states that a woman named [Nombre 176] told the judicial police that she had heard the offended minor say to a subject known as \"[Nombre 204]\" that he had killed \"[Nombre 172]\" and that he would do the same to [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 151] (cf. fs. 1537 to 1551 of the investigation file). (x) Ocular inspection report, which details the discovery of the body on the rest area at the entrance to the property, shell casings found on the sidewalk, and bullet impacts on the access gate and the structure of the dwelling. Furthermore, this document also yielded that the dwelling is located on a higher plane, approximately 1.20 meters above the public road (cf. fs. 1559 of the investigation file). (xi) Medico-legal report DA-2018-02874-PF, which details the injuries found on the body, corresponding to a total of thirteen impacts from firearm projectiles, distributed as follows: 3 to the skull, 2 to the face, 2 to the neck, 2 to the thorax, 1 to the right hand, and 3 to the right upper extremity. It also described that the trajectory of the majority of these was from front to back and from below upwards. With these findings, it was concluded that the manner of death was homicide, from a medico-legal point of view (cf. volume III, fs. 1568 to 1570 of the investigation file). (xii) Telephone communications intercepted after the event, in which both [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] provide information to third parties about what happened, placing them in time and place, and also allowing the establishment of a mode of execution consistent with the rest of the evidence (due to their importance, these will be discussed in greater detail below). From all these evidentiary elements, the trial court validly concluded that the death of the victim was caused by two people, specifically [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] (absent), who arrived at his home aboard a motorcycle and proceeded to shoot at him, managing to hit him on thirteen occasions, in various parts of the body, including the head, which caused a brain laceration that led to his death. This Chamber considers that the assessment of the evidence that allowed for that conclusion to be reached is adequate, since the analysis of the circumstantial evidence was carried out in a concatenated and joint manner, with the corresponding assignment of probative value that each one deserved. Thus, it was established that the motive for the crime is related to the homicide of [Nombre 202], alias \"[Nombre 172]\", which was allegedly carried out by the offended minor [Nombre 180] in the presence of [Nombre 010] and a third party known as [Nombre 151], which is why the aggrieved party would have intended to end the lives of those witnesses, which ultimately led [Nombre 010] to act first and end the minor's life. The trial court acknowledged that this motive was built solely upon reference testimonies, specifically from interviews gathered by the judicial police, since none of the direct witnesses who could provide information on the matter appeared at trial. However, this Chamber considers that the approach to this aspect was correct, because it was analyzed in light of the remaining evidence and was given credibility insofar as it was consistent with objective elements brought to the process. Without a doubt, the most relevant element available was the content of the intercepted communications from telephone lines [Valor 106] and [Valor 063], attributed, respectively, to [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161]. The use of these telephone numbers by the defendants was accredited by various investigative proceedings extensively set forth in the judgment, which are not revisited in this pronouncement as it is unnecessary, since it is an uncontroverted fact and, in the case of the line attributed to [Nombre 010], the defendant himself accepted being one of the interlocutors in the communications of interest. Sequence 0307048, from November 17, 2018, at 16:10:26 hours, captured the following communication: \"[Nombre 010] calls female. Female says - 'What do you want?', [Nombre 010] says - 'Where are you?', Female says – 'At work', [Nombre 010] says – 'Now, yes, now I can walk around calmly', Female says - 'Why?', [Nombre 010] says – 'Well, I already lifted, you know, him', Female says – 'Swear it', [Nombre 010] says – 'Yes, by God, you should see how I did it', Female says – 'Mae, I can't believe it, tell me', [Nombre 010] says – 'I'm already calling mommy, I took off, I came to Tibas freaked out, I've already showered and everything, and I'm going back down now', Female says – 'Oh, it can't be, and there's the whole swarm of cops', [Nombre 010] says – 'Yes, you should see the swarm of cops, he never showed his face, and I'm there with [Nombre 083]', Female says - 'Where did you get him?', [Nombre 010] says - 'Inside the house, I went in and everything' - Female says - 'Are you crazy?', [Nombre 010] says – 'Yes, you should see the swarm of cops, oh no, but it had to be done, because just imagine', Female says - 'Oh no', [Nombre 010] says – 'Yeah, you'll probably see the photos for sure in a bit', Female says – 'Oh no', [Nombre 010] says – 'You should see how he was saying to me: Mae, mae; and you know', Female says - 'And what did you say to him? Didn't you say anything to him?', [Nombre 010] says – 'I say: Damned son of a bitch, and yes, imagine, and I'm about to go see how everything is down there', Female says - 'But what about you?', [Nombre 010] says – 'Well, no, no, everything's fine, thank God it wasn't on my motorcycle, because my motorcycle is being fixed', Female says - 'On which motorcycle?', [Nombre 010] says – 'Well, no, on one there that they lent us, I'm going to go pick up my motorcycle because that day those big rats called me asking if I had problems with him and fulano and uuh uuh, and I told them no, that I had nothing to do with it', Female says – 'What a shame, huh, well, anyway', [Nombre 010] says – 'Well', Female says – 'Well', [Nombre 010] says – 'I'll see if I can get the photos and send them to you.' Female says – 'Alright.' Communication ends\" [sic] (cf. fs. 64 and 65 of the intervention file. The underlining is supplied). A first element highlighted in the judgment is that the communication occurred a few minutes after the homicide occurred, which was placed at approximately 3:00 p.m. The defendant converses with his romantic partner, named [Nombre 205], to whom he provides various details that were interpreted by the court of first instance (a quo) as follows: \"the defendant [Nombre 010] tells the female 'that now, yes, now I can walk around calmly', this phrase corresponds with what the judicial police officer [Nombre 133] indicated when he stated that the victim had manifested wanting to attack the integrity of [Nombre 010]; [Nombre 010] continues by indicating that 'I already lifted, you know, him', a phrase that in the slang lexicon of Costa Rican neighborhoods is used to refer to the fact that a person was killed or kidnapped or harmed, and from the context of what happened, it is an unequivocal sign that he was referring to the death of the victim, since immediately the female asks him to swear it and [Nombre 010] responds 'yes, by God, you should see how I did it', meaning then, in effect, he confirms that he had murdered the person; in addition to this, the accused [Nombre 010] told the female that the person 'never showed his face' and that he was with '[Nombre 083]', again a circumstance that links them directly, since as we narrated lines above, alias '[Nombre 083]' is fully identified as [Nombre 161], and according to the version of the judicial police, the victim likewise wanted to end the life of this person; continuing with the analysis of the communication, we see that the phrase 'never showed his face' in the slang lexicon of Costa Rican neighborhoods is used to refer to a person not being seen or not being in a specific place; in addition to this, the female asks him 'where did you get him?'\".\n\nAnd the response of [Name 010] was: “I went right into his *chante* and everything” (…), a specific circumstance that details that, in effect, as the ocular inspection and the findings at the scene show, the victim was killed outside his dwelling (the word “chante,” as it is known in Costa Rican slang, means a dwelling), inside a sort of mezzanine or hallway prior to entering the main door of his house; the accused [Name 010] then refers to the manner of execution of the victim by mentioning that the person was saying something to him and he was indicating “damn son of a bitch,” thus then referring to the hatred he showed against the victim, but also from this call it can be established that, in effect, at the time that [Name 010] referred to “there’s a *mosquero*,” (a phrase that in Costa Rican language refers to there being many people in a place or a special situation where there is a crowd of people), and it was indeed the situation of attending an event outside the norm, such as the homicide of the victim, and it was the moment when the authorities were still addressing the crime scene, if we see police report number 1266SITTE-IP-2018, it establishes that the Public Force officer [Name 196], stated through an interview that he was the one guarding the site and that at around 15:10 he was alerted via radio frequency of the victim's death and a woman wounded in the left leg, so it is known that the time of the attack against the victim occurred approximately at 15:00 hours as referred to by the judicial police in the header of the aforementioned report […] regarding the time of the homicide, it is reported by the Ocular Inspections officers, who detail that the arrival at the site for the ocular inspection was at 16:00 hours and just after that time, as we mentioned, the communication at 16:10 hours takes place, which is a coincidence with the homicide event, since [Name 010] told the female (interlocutor) that: “I took off and came to Tibás in a rush, I already bathed and everything and now I’m going back down,” thus then he clearly identifies that the homicide action he committed was in the Tibás canton and if we see when he refers to going back down, it is toward the Ciudadela León Trece, because he continues by saying: “I’m already calling mommy, I took off and came to Tibás in a rush, I already bathed and everything and now I’m going back down, Female says – Ah it can’t be and the whole *mosquero* is there,” in clear reference to the police presence and the attention to the homicide, one more reason that the court confirms his direct involvement in the murder, which is additionally compounded by the fact that [Name 010] tells the female that “now you’ll surely see the photos,” clearly alluding to the news in the press media of the victim’s death, the accused continues, [Name 010] telling the woman “that he is all good, that it's a good thing it wasn't on my motorcycle, because my motorcycle is being fixed, Female says - On which motorcycle?, [Name 010] says – Well, on one they lent us, I’m going to go pick up my motorcycle because that day when those big snitches called me asking if I had problems with that guy”; this is a finding of importance in the dialogue with the female, because from the dynamic of what was related by the accused, it is noted that he makes very clear reference that they committed the homicide on a motorcycle and which was not his property, as the same person states it, this aspect is of utmost importance because of the people interviewed by the judicial police, at the crime scene, the first versions allude that the people who murdered the victim had arrived at his dwelling on a motorcycle, as indicated by the witnesses [Name 206] and [Name 197], who interviewed the victim’s mother and the first version she provided was that two people in dark suits without helmets had arrived, and the lady indicated she could not recognize those who shot, since they were wearing helmets; this version collected by the judicial police of the dynamic of the act, is absolutely coincident with the dialogue held by the accused [Name 010] with the female to whom he confesses the homicide of the victim and indicated to her that to arrive at his house, he traveled together with [Name 161] on a motorcycle, details that ultimately coincide with this first version and also with the one provided by the judicial police's reference witness [Name 207], who although was not part of the testimonial evidence of the adversarial process, because she was not found, in police report number 28-SH/CI-2018, her interview is mentioned in which she stated that the people who had murdered the victim appeared on a motorcycle; this circumstance of the means by which the people who murdered the victim traveled was a point of discussion in the trial, however, for the court there is no doubt that from the dialogue indicated by [Name 010], it was indeed on a motorcycle how they arrived at the victim's dwelling and he did it together with [Name 161], which confirms a homogeneous and consistent version in accordance with what was established from the moment of the attack suffered by the victim” [sic] (cfr. fs. 939 to 942 of the judgment). This Chamber adopts the analysis carried out by the a quo, insofar as the communication provides details that are consistent, not only with the information gathered by the judicial police, with respect to the motive for the homicide and which is the reason why [Name 010] tells the woman that now he can walk around calmly, but it is also consistent with objective evidence, such as the result of the ocular inspection carried out at the scene and which places the body of the deceased at the entrance of his dwelling and ballistic evidence from the public road to the hallway of the property, which agrees with the statement of the accused, that the event took place “inside the *chante*,” that is, in his dwelling and that he had entered the place. Furthermore, the reference “come see how I did it” [sic], is a statement characteristic of someone who operated with excess, which also agrees with the finding of thirteen bullet impacts, some of them on the head and face of the victim. Just as the a quo, this Chamber considers that the immediacy with which the accused transmitted the information to his sentimental partner, allows us to deduce that it was because he lived the event and not because he obtained the information from references of third parties, police, or press media. Prior to the transcribed communication, at 15:17 hours, a call was recorded from telephone line [Value 063], used by [Name 161], alias “[Name 083],” sequence (0314515) with the following content: “[Name 083] called a female and said - well love, female said - well, third party extra phone said - what did [Name 208] do?, [Name 083] said to female - what are you doing?, female said - nothing, third party extra phone said - [Name 208] what did he do?, already?, [Name 083] said to third party extra phone - go before they enter, third party extra phone - huh?, [Name 083] said - go before the motorcycles enter, third party extra phone said something that is not understood, [Name 083] said - just you, you big dummy, third party extra phone says something that is not understood - [Name 083] said - if not, no but just you, third party extra phone said - I say that the deal will be that this guy sent more people, [Name 083] said – man what a big dummy (says something that is not understood), third party speaks off - phone however what he says is not understood, [Name 083] said to third party extra phone surely they ran into each other last night female said - what, [Name 083] said - well they say the guy who killed [Name 172] killed [Name 173], female how’s that?, [Name 083] said - yes, female said - Where? , [Name 083] said - at home, female said - where does he live?, [Name 083] said - there on the other side by the main road, female said - and are there ambulances and things like that?, [Name 083] said - well no no they already killed him they say he was left right there, female said - mmm, [Name 083] said - yes my love, female said – hopefully, [Name 083] said – was calling him, female said - mmm, [Name 083] said - it was his turn, female said - yes, [Name 083] said - honestly he killed [Name 172] it was a stupidity, female said - yes; well my love I’ll leave you I’m going to see how the tape is there because those people are already coming; they say goodbye” [sic] (cfr. f. 633 of the judgment). Although the accused does not place himself as one of the perpetrators of the act, he equally provides information that is compatible with the scene and the motive established by the judicial police. By the time the communication took place, few minutes had elapsed since the act, therefore, again, it is logical that the handling of the details expressed on this occasion by alias “[Name 083],” was because he was one of the participants in the crime.\n\nThe lower court (a quo), regarding that communication, pointed out: \"from that call the Court was able to establish several important circumstances related to the homicide of the victim, first that the communication took place at 15:17 hours on November 17, 2018, that is, just a few minutes after the time the event was reported to the police (corroborating that the time of the homicide was at 15:00 hours), also that alias '[Name 083]' clearly mentioned the location of the homicide and immediate details regarding that the victim did not require emergency care, because during the communication the female asked him if there were ambulances and he told her 'no they already killed him, they say he was left there', from the context of that communication the absent accused [Name 161] is certain of the victim's death and as we see by correlating this communication with those of the indictee [Name 010], they have absolute certainty of what was done, but additionally, of vital importance is that alias '[Name 083]' [Name 161], referred to an aspect that relates them to the motive for the homicide of the victim, and that is when he is telling the female he mentions: 'they say they killed [Name 173] who killed [Name 172]', two aspects stand out from this dialogue, the first, that he refers to the deceased person as '[Name 173]', which clearly in Costa Rican language is a reference to a young person or minor, and indeed the victim was a 17-year-old person, the second, is that he gives a transcendental detail as he refers that said victim had killed a person nicknamed '[Name 172]', this data is directly related to what was narrated in the debate and indicated earlier, by the judicial investigator [Name 133] from the Homicide Section, who had referred that according to the investigations conducted, the victim [Name 180] had allegedly killed a person named [Name 175], and that at the moment he murdered this person [Name 010] and another subject known as [Name 151] remained as witnesses to the event, these same circumstances were described in report number 28-SH/CI-2018, on folio 1545 verso, in the section identified as 'Common Causes', which explains and details the relationship between both homicides, but of greater importance is that the victim of the common cause was known by the alias of '[Name 172]', it is stated thus in said report when a woman named [Name 176] was interviewed, which although it is true she did not give her version in the adversarial proceedings, the O.I.J. officer [Name 133] referred to it, so that it is unavoidably related to the dialogue of the prior communication in which [Name 161] tells the female that the deceased was 'the [Name 181] who killed alias [Name 172]', this aspect is transcendental because only someone who had been aware of the murder of the other victim could refer to it and it therefore directly coincides with the action carried out by him and [Name 010], since there was knowledge that the victim [Name 180] wanted to execute [Name 010] and another subject named [Name 151], which clearly confirms the motive for his death at the hands of the accused [Name 010] who sought the help of the absent accused [Name 161] to carry it out\" (cf. ff. 945 to 946 of the judgment). As previously indicated, although the motive for the homicide was reconstructed from hearsay witnesses, the prior communication provides clear corroboration thereof, hence the use of that information as support for the conviction is valid. The court added to the above that in the communications with sequences 0229869, from the line of [Name 010], and 0330876 from the right used by [Name 161], conversations were captured between these investigated individuals with someone identified as '[Name 151]', which again is consistent with the information gathered by the judicial police, in the sense of the existence of a person with that name or alias, related to [Name 010] and who would have been a witness to the homicide of alias '[Name 172]'. In this regard, the judgment states: \"the person identified with the name [Name 151] maintained a direct link with the accused and therefore what was stated by the witness interviewed by officers of the Judicial Investigation Agency, regarding that the victim wanted to kill this person and it bears mentioning that both his name and that of [Name 010] are not names in common use, so the police theory and what was stated by the same accused [Name 010] is coincident\" (cf. f. 947 of the judgment). The following communication analyzed in the first instance ruling is that identified with sequence number 0307179, from 19:09 hours on November 17,\n\n2018, with the content detailed as follows: \"[Name 010] called [Name 083] and said to him 'where are you?', [Name 083] said 'why?', [Name 010] said 'because man the pigs are inside your alameda, [Name 083] said 'how many?', [Name 010] said 'two boxes dude', [Name 083] said 'oh I'm here at my house I'd better not go out', [Name 010] said 'are you in there?', [Name 083] said 'yes', [Name 010] said 'just in case because they're up to something weird', [Name 083] said 'but are they down there or what?', [Name 010] said 'no no, there's a patrol car right outside and one went inside dude'; they say goodbye\" (cf. f. 947 of the judgment). From that contact it is corroborated that both subjects were keeping track of the police presence at the site, which corresponds to the attitude typical of people who know they are responsible for the event that prompted the mobilization of police forces.\n\nFinally, under sequence 0309432, a communication was recorded, generated at 3:22 p.m. on November 21, 2018, from the telephone line in use by the defendant [Name 010]: «[Name 010] said – man yesterday we were out on a job if we'd pulled it off we would've made some sweet cash, subject said – with clitoris?, [Name 010] said – yeah man, subject said – mmm what a mother..., [Name 010] said – no but wait supposedly the thing is still on, subject said – is she alive? is she still alive?, [Name 010] said – yeah you idiot, subject said – yeah yeah you'll see you'll see if it's gonna happen, [Name 010] said – I hope so, subject said – and were you taking the jungle boy?, [Name 010] said – yeah, subject said – mmm yeah that son of a bitch is gonna be a millionaire soon, [Name 010] said – I already talked to [Name 178], subject said – and what does he say?, [Name 010] said – I tell you, god forbid [Name 074] was there, god forbid, because supposedly it was some guy who spent three hundred, subject said – uh-huh, [Name 010] said – yeah but in cash, subject said – uh-huh, [Name 010] said – yeah so supposedly they had to, you know, take the guys, you know, squeeze them, then [Name 065] says god forbid that fool had come because you know, two smacks to those sons of bitches and they give us the cash, subject said – uh-huh, [Name 010] said – yeah yeah, subject said – yeah man what a bummer, huh, [Name 010] said – well no no but keep your mouth shut, faggot, subject said – yeah yeah yeah yeah but but couldn't you do the thing or did you burn it?, [Name 010] said – no, supposedly the guys aren't there and the thing, subject said – mmm okay okay okay okay, yeah, (a call notification from a penitentiary center was heard), I'll get out soon don't worry, [Name 010] said – yeah soon, subject said – wait so you can see I'm going with even more hatred, [Name 010] said and they hit the guy so good and they hit the guy so good, subject said – I was gritting my teeth so hard when I found out, [Name 010] said – he looked exquisite, subject said – so delicious, how many how many, [Name 010] said – like twelve, like five he took to the face, subject said – how nice how nice, [Name 010] said – that guy was left looking exquisite, supposedly on the hit it was going to be [Name 083], me and [Name 178], subject said – on his thing, [Name 010] said – yeah man you idiot, subject said – fuck that little shit thought that with a little doll, well then yeah, [Name 010] said – well no no it's that the guy, man, the guy was just arriving in the neighborhood, faggot, subject said – that's why that's why but that snot-nosed son of a bitch thought that well then yeah that that, [Name 010] said – no and listen, [Name 178] was saying god forbid [Name 074] was here because that guy would already be down, subject said – no man, you idiot, (a call notification from a penitentiary center was heard), he would have been resting a long time ago, [Name 010] said – ah, subject said – he would have been resting a long time ago, [Name 010] said – imagine how he would have left him, subject said – he would have sent him straight to hell, [Name 010] said – ah, subject said – he would have sent him straight to hell, [Name 010] said – how many?, subject said – an entire thirty-two round magazine (they laugh), [Name 010] said – imagine how he would've left him like Swiss cheese, subject said – ah well imagine one more hole and he's a colander (they laugh), [Name 010] said – imagine (unintelligible), subject said – god forbid he had gotten ahold of him, [Name 010] said – you know what they called that guy?, subject said – what?, [Name 010] said – cheese, man, Mr. Cheese, subject said – they called him the moon, what a brute, [Name 010] said – for being an idiot, right, subject said – for playing with fire (a call notification from a penitentiary center was heard) subject said – he who plays with fire gets burned, [Name 010] said – and he got burned, burned to a crisp, subject said – and they burned him but red hot, hey listen what I was going to tell you uh do me a favor get me the number of his dad, [Name 010] said – whose dad? Ah uh-huh uh-huh, subject said – get it for me please, see, I think he changed it and I need to talk to [Name 179], [Name 010] said – okay, they say goodbye» [sic] (cf. fs. 948 to 949 of the judgment). In this communication, the accused provided information to a third party who was incarcerated about the manner in which he killed the victim.\n\nThe court, astutely, made the following interpretation: \"it is certain that this is [Name 010], who is speaking with his interlocutor, a person deprived of liberty, whom the judicial police link to this criminal structure called \"[Name 074]\", and who, from the context of the communication, knew the other members at liberty, to whom he recounts the manner in which he murdered the victim. Upon assessing it, we see he gives unmistakable details that the one who was killing the victim was the accused [Name 010], who said: \"and how sweetly they hit the dude,\" here it is denoted that they speak of harm to a person, and immediately the person deprived of liberty said: \"that he even clenched his teeth when he realized,\" a statement of congratulation toward his peer and simultaneously of hatred and vengeance. Immediately, [Name 010] responded: \"it was exquisite,\" in that context of the dialogue it occurred in a good way and [Name 010] was satisfied with his death. Then the individual asked: \"how many, how many?,\" and [Name 010] responded: \"like twelve, like five he took to the face\"… this last phrase is of vital importance, first because it is clear they refer to a firearm and the number of shots fired, and also because the accused [Name 010] gives a specific detail, which only the one who shot the victim could know with the precision he mentions it, since if we go to the Legal Medical Opinion of the autopsy performed on the victim, number DA-2018-02874-PF (visible on folios 1568 to 1570), we find that in the section on \"injuries found,\" the victim had thirteen wounds produced by firearm projectiles all over his body and that according to the distribution of the same, 5 of these were at the level of the head, being three in the skull and two in the face, then two more in the neck. Furthermore, according to the Ocular Inspection Report number 0829-SIORI-IPO-2018 (visible on folio 1559 Volume III of the Investigation File,) a total of twelve casings were located on the sidewalk (evidence items 2,3,4,5 and 6), as stated in the section on \"location of evidence.\" All of this gives a very exact approximation of the evidence found with the detail that the accused [Name 010] gives to his interlocutor when he is recounting the method of execution of the homicide and its coincidence with the established evidence from the crime scene. Moreover, the interlocutor individual \"[Name 074]\" responds \"how nice, how nice,\" emphasizing the action executed with a nuance of congratulation, and [Name 010] responds \"that one ended up exquisite,\" which definitively brought joy to the accused, who also laughed with his interlocutor (as heard in the audio recording that the Court examined). Upon reaching this point, we see how the communication continues, and as if this were not enough, the accused [Name 010] in this communication again refers to the motive or the motivation for ending the victim's life, and here it is worth saying that what was previously mentioned in other communications is reaffirmed, both by the absent accused [Name 161] and by the accused [Name 010], since in the following excerpt from the communication, [Name 010] tells his interlocutor what that motive was, mentioning that: \"supposedly in the lineup it was going to be [Name 083], me, and [Name 178]\" and the person deprived of liberty responds \"in his thing\" and [Name 010] reaffirms that yes. Regarding the indication or phrase \"in the lineup,\" this is typical in the context of dialogues in our environment, to refer that someone is going to die, or they want to kill them, and therefore the phrase gains importance when [Name 010] indicates to his interlocutor that the ones who supposedly were going to go \"in the lineup,\" meaning in context to die or they wanted to kill them, were alias \"[Name 083]\" [Name 161] and him. Indisputably, in the communication everything that the judicial police itself had been referring to from the beginning of the investigation into the death of the victim [Name 180] is reaffirmed, when lines before we mentioned that there were common causes and they were related to the death of a person alias \"[Name 172],\" that apparently the victim [Name 180] had killed, and that the latter was the one who maintained a threat against [Name 010] and [Name 161], for being witnesses to that homicide, all of which is consistent with the context of the communications already referred to by the accused [Name 010] and the absent accused [Name 161]. But from the foregoing it results that the final dialogue of the charged [Name 010] with the person deprived of liberty heightens that motivation to kill the victim, since both mention the following: \"fucking guy thought because of a little doll it was all good, [Name 010] said – well no it's not that the man, dude, the man was just arriving to the neighborhood, individual said – that's why, that's why, but that little son of a bitch kid thought that it was all good that that, [Name 010] said – no, and listen, [Name 178] was saying God forbid if [Name 074] were here because that guy would already be down, individual said – no dude, (a call announcement from a penitentiary center was heard), he would have been resting a while ago, [Name 010] said -ah, individual said – he would have been resting a while ago, [Name 010] said – imagine how he would have stopped him, individual said – he would have sent him to fucking hell, [Name 010] said - ah , individual said - he would have sent him to hell.\" We see that both refer to the fact that the victim was just arriving to the neighborhood, which in the context is the Ciudadela León Trece, and also both identify him as \"kid,\" which clearly in Costa Rican language refers to a young person or a minor, and indeed the victim was a 17-year-old person. Here it is worth saying that [Name 161] referred to him in the same way in the communication with a female, when he identified him as \"[Name 181]\", which we developed previously; and both in the last phrases of their communication refer to the fact that if the person deprived of liberty (interlocutor- [Name 074]) had been at the scene, in the same sense he would have murdered the victim with thirty shots and that they would send him to hell or he would be resting, all in reference to when a person dies or is murdered. And then they mock by indicating that they would have left him like a cheese, and the accused [Name 010] stated that the victim was called \"[Name 357]\" and the individual says \"the moon,\" in clear reference to the holes that were inflicted on the victim the day of his death. Finally, both reach the conclusion that \"for being dumb and for being an idiot\" and because \"he who plays with fire gets burned,\" and the accused [Name 010] stated that the victim \"got burned, totally burned,\" and the person deprived of liberty responded \"they burned him but red hot.\" Once more they show their congratulation for his death and demonstrate the affirmation of the motive for the crime, since both refer to \"he played with fire and got burned,\" a phrase that is common to identify in the context of a conversation, when a person enters into danger or exposes themselves to harmful consequences for themselves. And definitively that was the reason why the charged [Name 010] killed the victim, since he knew of his interest in killing him and alias \"[Name 083]\" [Name 161], as he stated in said communication\" [sic] (cf. fs. 950 to 953 of the judgment). Again, through the accused [Name 010]'s own expressions, the police hypothesis regarding the motive for the homicide is accredited, by referring to the victim's intention to kill him and alias [Name 083], for which reason they decided to get ahead and end his life. Furthermore, the number of shots becomes a piece of information of vital importance, because the defendant relates that it was about 12 and that at least 5 hit him in the face, in clear concordance with the injuries found on the victim's body.\n\nAs has been detailed, the body of evidence was adequately addressed by the *a quo* and from it, it is valid to conclude the criminal responsibility of the defendant [Nombre 010] for the death of the minor [Nombre 180], without any defects being noted in the reasoning set forth by the court. Now, the defense questions that the participation of its client was established solely based on two telephone communications; however, the account provided dismisses that claim. As already indicated, while it is true that the telephone communications are the most significant evidentiary element, they are not the only one, since, through the police reports, the testimony of the investigators in charge of the case, as well as the result of the autopsy performed on the body of the victim and the evidence collected at the scene, it was possible to corroborate that, in effect, [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] were the perpetrators of the act. The communications are actually the evidentiary element that brings together the remaining circumstantial evidence and the construction exercise carried out by the trial court on this matter was exhaustive and adequate, therefore there is no defect to reproach the judgment regarding evidentiary sufficiency. The defense seems to understand that the proof of the crime could only be made through direct evidence, which completely disregards that in our criminal procedural system the principle of freedom of evidence governs, which allows a fact to be proven using any evidentiary element that has been lawfully obtained, precisely what happened in this case, in which the investigation conducted by the police was carried out in accordance with the law and there is no reason to consider that the truth was falsified or data altered with the intent to harm the defendant. On the contrary, those in charge of the investigation provided information that was gathered as part of their duties and in that context appeared at trial to relate what they knew about the case and the steps taken. Regarding the fact that the mother of the victim and the other woman who was at the scene, who is [Nombre 207], did not identify the perpetrator of the act, it should be noted that this circumstance was known to the authorities from the beginning of the investigation, because in the initial interview conducted with them by the judicial police, both stated that they did not observe the perpetrators of the act, which is why the Public Ministry even refused to conduct a physical lineup of people with the defendants during the investigation phase, as it was a completely irrelevant investigative step (cf. f. 3168 of the main file). Again, the defense falls into a bias, suggesting that only a direct identification of its client as the perpetrator would have the power to defeat his presumption of innocence, thereby ignoring the existence of other equally valuable and compelling elements for those purposes, as has been explained. The defense errs in pointing out that the trial court deemed it proven that the perpetrator entered the victim’s house. On the contrary, the lower court’s ruling clearly stated that the attackers “*did not enter the interior of the dwelling*” (cf. f. 928 of the judgment). However, what was indeed established is that the accused [Nombre 010] entered the property, although not the interior of the dwelling, not only because he himself stated so in the intercepted communications, but also due to the location of shell casings inside the property and near the body of the victim, which was on a higher plane in relation to the street, implying that these pieces of evidence could only have reached that place through the perpetrator’s action of crossing the property boundary and ascending to where the victim was while shooting at him. Regarding the claim that the defendant’s statements were motivated by boasting about an act he did not commit, the court completely dismissed that defensive thesis for the reasons set forth *supra*, but also because it deemed it proven that, throughout the investigation, other communications from [Nombre 010] also existed in which he related other events of a similar nature, for example the one identified with sequence 0319099, which even led the judicial police and the Public Ministry to point him out as one of the persons in charge of taking the lives of those who opposed the criminal organization. On the other hand, as indicated, the information that was transmitted by the accused in the call with his romantic partner, due to its temporal proximity, could only have been known by someone who participated in the act. Regarding the fact that the defendant [Nombre 010] never received threats from the victim, this is a circumstance that was not part of the Public Ministry’s theory of the case, and therefore it is completely irrelevant. What was handled during the investigation phase as the motive for the crime is that both [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] would have been witnesses to the homicide of alias “[Nombre 172]” at the hands of the victim and that for this reason, he wanted to kill them, something he would have expressed to a third party. That information is precisely corroborated by the transcribed communications, insofar as the accused told his partner that he could now be at ease, while he indicated to a third party that the victim intended to attack him and alias “[Nombre 083],” so this is information adequately corroborated by the defendant himself. Thus, this Chamber also finds no deficiency in the analysis regarding what the court pointed out concerning the expression of [Nombre 010], who stated to a third party that the aggrieved party “*played with fire and got burned*,” because this statement is completely consistent with the historical event reconstructed at trial, according to which [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] killed the victim as a preventive measure upon learning that he wanted to end their lives. For the same reason, what the defense alluded to, regarding the fact that the deceased had no reason to kill [Nombre 010], is a mere conjecture, which contrasts with the forcefulness of the evidence presented at trial and which reveals a different picture. As for the claim that the judicial police would have made its client believe that the minor victim wanted to attack his life, this is also speculation by the defense. The information detailed at trial regarding the motive for the homicide was obtained as part of the investigation tasks carried out by the judicial police after the death of the minor victim. On the other hand, regarding the defensive thesis that points out that at the time of the events the defendant [Nombre 010] was in the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia, based on the activation of cell towers for the cellular phone he used, the judgment adequately explains the way in which that information should be interpreted, since it is not possible to derive exact locations from those studies, but rather approximate ones, which must be contrasted with other evidentiary elements, because cellular phones do not necessarily connect to the nearest cell tower when a phone call is made, since if that one is saturated, it will switch to the next. In that sense, the judgment states: “*the theory of the case of the technical and material defense, which specifically [Nombre 010] declared prior to the conclusions of his lawyer, the defender Mr. Víctor Rodríguez De Sarraga (which will be detailed later), being that to give content to this section an extract of that statement is analyzed, indicating among other things [Nombre 010]: “that day that the event happens I was in the cuesta de Santo Domingo by some apartments, I was with another female”, the court has analyzed this and while indeed there are two communications that were reflected in the previously mentioned OPO report, between 15:38 and 15:41, those two communications were with the use of the cell tower identified in the criminal analysis report as “La Cuesta San Domingo”, therefore the defense tries to ensure that the accused [Nombre 010] was not at the crime scene location, that is, in La León Trece, however, the court has carried out a detailed analysis of the flow of those communications and what is shown is that the use of a cell tower will depend on the saturation of each one of them, which is a matter already consolidated by experience in various judicial cases of this same nature, in which it has been explained abundantly that the use of cell towers will depend on the saturation they maintain and the user communication traffic that exists in the place where a specific cell tower is located, hence it is not always the cell tower closest to the place of habitual use where the person uses the cellular device that will be identified, the clearest example being that in the same report 701-OPO/UAC/ART-2019, on page 5, the use of cell towers by the cellular service used by [Nombre 010] is illustrated, and as we can observe, indeed at 15:41:30 the use of the cell tower “Cuesta Rojas Santo Domingo” was maintained, but three minutes and thirty seconds after this, the accused [Nombre 010] is using the identified cell tower M01/107 “Estadio Ricardo Saprissa”, so it is evident that this affirmation will not always be a definitive factor to take into account, especially since, as we have been reviewing, the time of the homicide was 38 minutes before the use of that cell tower by [Nombre 010], who could well have been in La León Trece, since the time of the homicide was at three o’clock in the afternoon*” [sic] (cf. fs. 940 to 941 of the judgment).\n\nFinally, the defense challenges the discrediting of the statement of [Nombre 183], who appeared as a defense witness and testified at trial that he witnessed the events and that the perpetrator was a person of color. Regarding this statement, this Chamber agrees with the analysis conducted by the lower court (a quo), which determined that it was a complacent and tailored statement intended to try to provide an alternative theory of the events and thereby create a doubt that would favor the accused. However, the sufficiency and forcefulness of the circumstantial evidence brought to the process completely displaces that possibility. The contested ruling correctly points out: \"if what the party intended was to provide a differentiated version of what happened with the death of the victim, for the court, upon comparing the statement given in the adversarial hearing by Mr. [Nombre 183], with what is contained in the evidence, documentary, testimonial, expert, and the telephone interceptions, the court cannot give it the intended value; first, the rules of logic and experience tell us that the witness is indeed lying, because in the debate he refers to some elements that have not been previously provided, and although the witness presented himself as a person who did not show emotion or nervousness, it is because ultimately his testimony was structured to coincide with a defensive hypothesis or alibi, but it succumbs to the evidentiary reality that the Court has clearly from the communications of the accused [Nombre 010] himself, that it is he who, together with the absent defendant [Nombre 161], killed the victim; the divergences of the witness's account with the elements of evidence are of such magnitude in this case, since unlike other occasions or situations where there are two conflicting versions, the point is that in this case the contradiction of the witness's testimony is with the defendant [Nombre 010] and his communications for the day of the homicide and subsequent ones, in which he reveals and recounts how he murdered the underage victim; this primary aspect, beyond whether or not we give credibility to a testimony, does not hold because there is a reality of the case that does not support contradiction\" (cf. f. 963 of the judgment). This Chamber agrees that the defense witness's statement was not credible and, for that reason, cannot give rise to a doubt that operates in favor of the justiciable [Nombre 010]. Based on the circumstances set forth, this Court concludes that the intellectual reasoning of the lower court's ruling, regarding the homicide committed to the detriment of the minor [Nombre 180], is sufficient, adequate, and in accordance with the law, without observing flaws in reasoning or in the weighing of evidence that must be declared. Consequently, upon dismissing the complaints of the defense, the appropriate course is to declare the ground without merit.\n\nXX. Second ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, in favor of the justiciable [Nombre 010]. He alleges \"Insufficient reasoning for the imposed penalty.\" He considers that the penalty of 18 years of imprisonment for the crime of homicide is excessive and disproportionate, because it is the maximum extreme. He asserts that the personal conditions of his client were not taken into consideration, specifically that he is part of a family unit, is a young person, and has no criminal record. He deems that numerals 71 of the Penal Code and 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code were violated. He seeks a reduction of the sanction, and therefore requests the referral of the case file. By majority vote, the ground is granted. For reasons different from those stated in the appeal, the imposed penalty is annulled, and the case is ordered referred back to trial for a new substantiation. Once the reasoning for the sanction established for [Nombre 010] for the crime of simple homicide committed to the detriment of [Nombre 180] was analyzed, this Chamber deems that it presents severe deficiencies that entail its nullity. The Public Prosecutor's Office, provisionally, stated in the accusation that the acts committed to the detriment of the minor [Nombre 180] constituted a qualified homicide. However, the lower court (a quo) concluded that the aggravating circumstances of perfidy (alevosía) or cruelty (ensañamiento) were not described, and therefore reclassified the accredited action to a simple homicide, which carries a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 years of imprisonment. From the above punitive range, the trial court opted to impose the maximum extreme of the sanction, that is, 18 years of imprisonment. Under the foregoing circumstances, a first assessment that must be made is that, the higher the penalty to be imposed, the margin of discretion increases and, therefore, the risk of arbitrariness rises, which is why greater rigor is required in the reasoning of the sanction, allowing the parties, as well as the public, to have certainty, clarity, and better control over the reasons that led the administrator of justice to make a reproach of such intensity for the offense committed. From the reading of the section titled \"Penalty regarding the crime of simple homicide thus re-classified,\" this Chamber observes that the lower court (a quo) incurred in deficient and contradictory reasoning when determining the sanction to impose on the justiciable [Nombre 010]. Note that the defendant is reproached for his membership in the criminal organization led by alias \"[Nombre 084],\" a circumstance that would have led him to engage in criminal acts of homicide; that is, the criminal framework from which the crime was committed is taken into account for setting the maximum penalty provided for the crime of simple homicide. However, it is immediately clarified that the death of the minor [Nombre 180]—for which the sanction is imposed—is totally unrelated to the activities of the gang and was motivated by a desire of [Nombre 010] to take revenge or take justice into his own hands. Furthermore, he is accused of affecting the legal rights of other persons, through extortions or deprivations of liberty, and even various communications are cited where situations of this nature are evidenced, yet none of these were charged in this case and, therefore, no criminal liability was attributed to him for them. It is indicated that the defendant is a young person, with the capacity to adjust his conduct to the law and even that he has \"significant leadership,\" and at the same time it states that he is a victim of his own circumstances, for residing in an area of social risk, which would have led him to engage in illicit activities. This last argument even seems to note a situation of vulnerability that could give rise to a lesser reproach, so the contradiction is evident when it is used as an argument to increase the sanction. The crime was classified as a simple homicide; however, the lower court (a quo) includes references that seem to allude to perfidious action (alevosía), that is, although it convicts for the simple offense, it seems to sanction based on the aggravated offense. This type of reasoning is inadmissible. The aspects that were not included by the Public Prosecutor's Office intentionally, due to oversight, or any other circumstance, cannot be used in the judgment to prejudice the accused person, which is exactly what happens in this case. If the conduct that was held as accredited corresponds to a simple homicide, it is based on that conduct that the reproach of the defendant must be made. On the other hand, reference is also made to drug trafficking activity, and he is questioned for having engaged in that illicit commercial activity, despite the fact that the corresponding reproach trial had already been raised for such criminality; that is, a double punishment is conducted for the same acts. As a result of the foregoing circumstances, the remaining arguments allude to circumstances favorable to the accused—having a clean record, being young, having a family, among others—, the family impact on the justiciable as a result of the events, and the circumstances that mediated in the commission of the crime, which do not allow the 18-year prison sentence to be considered justified. The noted deficiencies can in no way be resolved by this Chamber, because it would imply assuming functions that are proper to another jurisdictional authority; hence the need to annul the established penalty is imposed. Based on the circumstances set forth, by majority vote, the ground is granted; consequently, in accordance with numerals 142, 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 71 of the Penal Code, the sanction imposed on [Nombre 010] for the crime of simple homicide committed to the detriment of the minor [Nombre 180] is annulled, and the case is ordered referred back to the Criminal Court of the Specialized Jurisdiction for Organized Crime, so that, with a different panel, it may proceed to substantiate this point anew. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\nDISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.- With profound respect, I depart from the decision of the majority of this appellate chamber (ad quem), and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare the second ground of the appeal by the private defense of the defendant [Nombre 010] without merit. While the court made reference to other events – extortions and deprivations of liberty –, which are clearly not valid arguments for the reasoning of the penalty for the homicide committed by [Nombre 010], my view is that when carrying out a hypothetical suppression exercise, the result is a broad, objective motivation strictly linked to the act, constituting a correct, just, and proportional reproach that is indeed aligned with the parameters of Article 71 of the Penal Code. In the seventh considerando of the judgment, the lower court (a quo) made a broad assessment of why [Nombre 010] deserved the maximum penalty for the simple homicide committed, this being a decision that, from my point of view, conforms to the high degree of culpability inherent to the convicted person, who committed a crime against life regarding which there are sufficient aspects, all of them duly appraised in the ruling, that present [Nombre 010] as an active subject who planned the attack, who did it for revenge to anticipate what he believed would be an equally violent act by the victim against him, who knew that his victim used to watch his back, and who executed the homicide when he saw the opportunity to proceed, for which he took advantage of the fact that the affected person was vulnerable in his mother's house, murdering a minor in a merciless and notably violent manner, as he shot him thirteen times. Furthermore, after the fact, [Nombre 010] boasted of his actions and mocked the victim, making clear his high contempt for human life, his ease in incurring an event that illustrates the concepts of brutality and cruelty, from which the lack of scruples of [Nombre 010] is easily inferred, as well as the absence of remorse on his part. All of this was correctly assessed by the trial court, by affirming that [Nombre 010] executed the homicide: \"…with total cold blood and in a perverse manner…\", specifically assessing: \"…the manner in which it was executed, while he was trusting, inside his home, a place where an average person remains comfortable and which is the living space with his mother, as was accredited, the accused [Nombre 010] taking advantage to suddenly break into the interior of the dwelling (corridor) and discharge the firearm…\", the court emphasizing that the defendant boasted of his crime because he said: \"…you should have seen how I left him\", and thereby ensured that the victim had no possibility of reaction, but also in that same communication, he told this female \"that he could now walk calmly\", alluding to the threat he had received from the victim and that was the motivation for the murder, and finally in said communication, as if it were a trophy of his actions, he referred to the woman that: \"I'm going to see if I can get the photos and send them to you…\".\n\nLikewise, the judgment reproaches [Nombre 010] that: “…the accused, after the homicide of the victim, not only boasted of having killed him, but also mocked the way in which he executed it (…) four days after the homicide of the victim [Nombre 180], through the communication identified with sequence number (0309432), he maintains a dialogue with a person who is deprived of liberty in a penitentiary center, and (…) [Nombre 010] was indicating to the other subject that the victim had been left “riquísimo, exquisito quedó” (“really rich, exquisite he was left”), in clear reference to the number of shots he fired at him, and this because immediately after in that dialogue he told the subject that he had fired 12 shots and 5 in the face, and subsequently they mocked the manner of death by stating that “un hueco más y era un colador” (“one more hole and he would have been a colander”) and that they called him “[Nombre 357]…”. To conclude, the ruling sizes up the reproach that the defendant deserves, asserting that: “…for [Nombre 010] ending the victim's death was an act of jubilation and joy, which he externalized to his fellow men (…) he is deserving of the maximum reproach, since the prior motivation to kill the victim implies the development of a structured mental activity of a person who only thought about killing without contemplation and contempt for the life of a human being (…) an exploitation of circumstances that was externalized by [Nombre 010] when he stated that the victim “nunca se ponía y ando ahí con [Nombre 083]” (“he never stood up and I hang around there with [Nombre 083]”), in reference to the fact that he kept lying in wait for his victim and saw the opportunity and they killed the victim, which in a certain way denotes prior planning to ensure the execution of the homicide, and they violently entered the safe zone of the victim in a state of defensive vulnerability…” (cfr. judgment, seventh considering). As can be seen, the trial court made a true personalization of the reproach that justifies the maximum penalty chosen for [Nombre 010], which from my point of view was a decision without contradictions and with strict adherence to the parameters established by numeral 71 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal), which is why my vote is to declare the second ground of the appeal of the private defense counsel of the accused [Nombre 010] without merit.\n\n**XXI. Third ground of the appeal filed by the private defense counsel Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, in favor of the defendant [Nombre 010].** The defense did not title this claim as a separate ground; however, it is separated for greater clarity and precision of the topics. Regarding the attribution of criminal responsibility for drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas), it claims «insufficient evidentiary basis (fundamentación probatoria)». It considers that the mere mention of a fact without associating it with a specific piece of evidence that would allow the participation of the defendant to be accredited is insufficient. It asserts that the trial court merely made a doctrinal exposition on the crime of drug trafficking, but did not describe «the behavioral materialization(s)» incurred by [Nombre 010], because it was based solely on the content of the telephone interceptions, without any other type of «perceptible» evidence such as a drug seizure or the moment the negotiations occurred. It refers that no seizure report, expert examination, or verifiable surveillance by photographs was brought into the proceeding. Regarding the grievance, it details that its client was convicted without suitable evidentiary support, which harms his freedom of movement. It requests that the ruling be revoked and an acquittal be issued. In a subsidiary manner, that the challenged judgment be annulled and a remand for a new trial be ordered.\n\n**By majority, the ground is declared without merit.** Regarding the criminal responsibility of [Nombre 010] for the crime of drug trafficking, after the comprehensive examination of the summary, the majority of this Chamber considers that the intellectual basis presented by the *a quo* allows only some of the attributed conduct to be considered proven, and not the entirety of the accusations in the charging document. To explain the reasons that lead this Chamber to such a determination, the first thing that must be highlighted are the proven facts of the judgment involving [Nombre 010]: «*1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046] (deceased), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for storage, distribution and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: • The storage and dosing of the drug stashes acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of the stashes to the various points of sale. • The commercialization of drug stashes belonging to the criminal group to other narco bands based in the national territory.*»\n\n*«• The commercialization of drug stashes belonging to the narco-structure to third party drug addicts, through the properties that the organization held for this purpose in the manner of \"Bunkers\", as well as on the public thoroughfares of the zones under the organization's control. • The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking the use of various means for this purpose. 3.- This drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal manner, such that each of its members carried out specific functions, all in a single direction, the commercialization of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following:* […] *[Nombre 010]: Member of the criminal organization and trusted by the leader of the criminal group [Nombre 001], his functions within the group were oriented according to the instructions issued by the hierarchy and were aimed at the security of the leader of the criminal group, the sale of narcotics to third parties.*\n\n4.9 As part of the distribution of roles among the members of the criminal group, the group’s hierarchy allowed members of the criminal organization to carry out various functions ranging from the *surveillance and control of certain perimeters of the León XIII housing complex*, to the sale of narcotics, as in the case of the accused [Name 010], who maintained these roles within the criminal group, with the authorization of the accused [Name 001]. 4.10 On November 27, 2018, as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, he coordinated the sale of a shipment of narcotics with an unidentified person, with the accused issuing instructions through the communication channel he used to coordinate the delivery of the drugs in exchange for an undetermined amount of money. 4.11 As part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 22, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with an unidentified person the sale of a quantity close to one pound of Marijuana, for a sum near ₡130,000.00 (one hundred thirty thousand colones). 4.12 As part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 5, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with an unidentified person the sale of at least one kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride for an amount near ₡5,100,000.00 (five million one hundred thousand colones). [...] 6.12 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 010], the following result was obtained, and these items correspond to objects acquired with money obtained from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand Leica-style cell phone, black, with two IMEI numbers, 869103042154338 and 8691103042162539, and a SIM card number 8950604402809759547, and a Samsung brand cell phone, gray, with two IMEI numbers, 357474096804865 and 35747509804862, and with a SIM card number 8950604101002903973F. • A total amount of cash in the sum of ₡1,611,000.00 colones (one million six hundred eleven thousand colones), money that was generated from the trafficking and commercialization of narcotics carried out by the accused [Name 010]. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black, IMEI 35694910/094681/1 and 356950/10/094681. • A Samsung brand cell phone, white, IMEI 357098101662214, and a Samsung brand tablet, black, with the photograph of [Name 010]. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gold, IMEI 359878/06/905261R, in poor condition. • A Huawei brand cell phone, blue, SIM card number 950642020149289. • A Swann brand recorder, black, with its respective cables\" [sic] (cf. pp. 276 to 320 of the judgment). As is evident from the foregoing account of facts, the defendant [Name 010] was charged with two specific functions within the criminal organization: (i) security duties in two modalities: for the leader of the organization [Name 001] and perimeter surveillance in the León XIII housing complex (facts 1, 2, 3, and 4.9); (ii) sale of narcotics to third parties (facts 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12). Although both functions were deemed proven in the judgment, the majority of this Chamber considers that only the first of them is adequately supported. Regarding the second, the evidence assessed by the a quo is insufficient to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt—a point that will be elaborated upon further below. An analysis of the judgment reveals that several sections allude to the actions carried out by [Name 010]; however, under the title \"Facts against [Name 010] regarding drug trafficking and with the authorization of [Name 001]\" (cf. p. 456), a particular analysis of his criminal responsibility was performed. This describes how the accused appeared in the investigation from the initial stages, which is reconstructed in the judgment based on report IP-297-EN-18 dated October 19, 2018 (cf. pp. 1 to 87 of the investigation file) and the trial testimony of the judicial investigators in charge of the inquiries. These elements constitute lawful evidence, incorporated into the process in a timely manner and afforded full credibility, without any circumstances being verified that would warrant reaching a different conclusion. Regarding the security duties carried out by [Name 010], the judgment reconstructs several events: two surveillance operations conducted at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center on April 3, 2018, and November 2, 2018, in which the defendant's accompaniment of [Name 001] was documented when the latter appeared at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center to visit his romantic partner. Concerning these, the judgment states: \"As a result of the surveillance conducted on April 3, 2018, at the El Buen Pastor correctional facility, the identification of [Name 010] was obtained, as he was located driving the vehicle with license plate [Value 070], precisely a Toyota Prado, from which [Name 001] had disembarked minutes earlier to then enter the correctional facility for his conjugal visit; [Name 010] was intercepted by Police Intelligence officers after prior coordination with judicial investigators, who seized a firearm from him, a Glock brand pistol, Model 17gen4, 9mm caliber.\"\n\n9x19 Series Bcux778, irregularly stamped, it was also recorded that [Name 001] left the CAI, and upon observing the situation in which the Toyota Prado [Value 070] had been stopped, he headed north on foot to later board a taxi with license plate [Value 107]; they followed him and the operation led them to the address [Name 056], precisely 75 meters west of the Clínica de Santo Domingo de Heredia, a residence which the subject of interest entered. (cf. pages 3-5 report IP-297-EN18) […] The results that the intercepted calls were yielding, as well as other police operations, were recorded in report IP-320-EN-2018 dated November 8, 2018. It was indicated that the aliases of the intercepted individuals, such as “[Name 124]”, “[Name 109]”, as well as [Name 010], came to light from the calls. While the interception of communications was active, the judicial investigators continued with the field work; surveillance was resumed at the Centro Penal el Buen Pastor on the occasion of conjugal visits that [Name 001] regularly made to his romantic partner and prisoner [Name 081]. The report records the results of the surveillance carried out on November 2, 2018, at the El Buen Pastor prison, where movements were again triggered that were related to the protection of [Name 001], who in fact was observed when he entered the conjugal visit. A Toyota-brand vehicle, Corolla style, light gray, with license plate [Value 108], was identified by the police; another Toyota, Echo model, gold color, license plate [Value 045] with tinted windows, luxury rims, also on the sidewalk located on the east side of the Buen Pastor, [Name 161], ID [Value 109], and in the vicinity, [Name 010], ID [Value 004], given that both the vehicles and the people sighted were already previously known to the judicial investigators as part of the criminal group led by Mr. [Name 001] (folios 5 to 9 report IP-320-EN-2018) (cf. fs. 457 to 459 of the judgment). The trial court placed special emphasis on the statement of judicial investigator [Name 092], who related, in the relevant part: “The criminal judge informed us of how [Name 083] and [Name 083] orchestrated with other subjects the transfers of [Name 001]. According to the judge's interceptions, these transfers were quite clear due to the operational logistics not only in the León 13 sector but also in the vicinity of the Vilma Curling […] In this specific case, it was a surveillance operation carried out at the Vilma Curling in November 2018, where we observed the security detail that these investigated individuals had for [Name 001]. At the time of departure, we were able to spot [Name 083] in the area, but also that the person who guarded [Name 001] from the pontoon of the Vilma Curling until he entered vehicle [Value 108], I believe it was a Corolla, the person who guarded him was [Name 010]. This is important because according to the judge's interceptions, [Name 083] calls a subject to alert him of possible police actions, and upon us seeing that the one who was with [Name 001] was [Name 010], we were able to obtain [Name 010]'s phone number. We began to perceive, as this guy was saying—[Name 010] says this guy said to call 911 and say that those guys were armed. To us, that was for the purpose of ruling out that the vehicle they had detected belonged to any police force” (cf. f. 353 of the judgment). The communication referred to by the judicial investigator was also considered by the a quo and corresponds to sequence 0310019, at 10:47:56 hours on November 2, 2018.\n\nIn addition to the foregoing, the judgment explains that, based on the communications identified with sequence numbers 0254293, of November 24, 2018; 0254017, of December 19, 2018; 0017911, at 12:09 p.m. on November 24, 2018; 0017940, at 12:28 p.m. on November 24, 2018; 0313622, at 6:27 p.m. on November 28, 2018; 0008581, at 10:43 p.m. on December 12, 2018; 0254017, at 9:06 p.m. on December 19, 2018; 0317594, at 3:53 p.m. on December 31, 2018, it is possible to establish \"the active functioning of a criminal organization, the distinct functions and tasks assigned to each of the members of the narco organization that up to that point had been identified by the police are clearly understood, where some had the function of collaborating with the entry and transfer of food to the prison where [Name 081], the romantic partner of [Name 001], was incarcerated, an aspect that again reveals the hierarchical level of [Name 001], such interpretation arises from listening to communications containing orders retransmitted from [Name 001] to [Name 010] and [Name 161] in relation to gathering the various collaborators ([Name 210], [Name 124], [Name 109], [Name 123]) to carry out the different transfers or custody of shipments that were later confirmed to be drugs, money, and weapons\" (cf. pp. 467 to 468 of the judgment). However, the majority of this Chamber disagrees that these give rise, without a doubt, to the effective participation of [Name 010] in any drug transfer, and for such purposes it is necessary to transcribe those in which he interacts, which correspond to the following: \"From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0313622. The intercepted phone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 110]. This call was made at 6:27 p.m. on November 28, 2018.\n\nSubject called [Name 010] and said – tell me, [Name 010] said – there he is, what's up asshole?, what do I tell him?, [Name 001] said off-phone – tell the corn guy to come to the big high school on a motorcycle, [Name 010] told a second subject – tell the corn guy to come to the big high school on a motorcycle, second subject said – ok, [Name 010] said – and tell him to wait outside right now, subject told a fourth subject – to come to the big high school on a motorcycle right now and wait outside, second subject told [Name 010] - on a motorcycle huh?, [Name 010] said – yes, second subject said to [Name 010] – ok yes he's on his way out; they say goodbye. Communication ends\" and \"From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0317594. The intercepted phone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 094]. This call was made at 3:53 p.m. on December 31, 2018. [Name 010] received a call from a subject, [Name 010] said – hello, subject said – all clear I'm on my way over here by\n\nAyA, [Name 010] said – ok keep coming, subject said – here I am going by AyA, [Name 010] said – ok keep coming because here I come, subject said - where are you going?, [Name 010] said – by the bridge all clear, subject said – by the bridge keep going, keep going, I am here around the bend, [Name 010] said – go go go, all good, all good, the whole bridge looks clear, subject said – ok, [Name 010] said - everything clear here, everything clear, subject said – you keep going, [Name 010] said – here I come all clear, subject said – keep going I'm coming down here now, [Name 010] said – what I need is for them to do it a little faster because those little boxes are around, you say that [Name 069] told you, subject said – yes yes, go ahead, I'm just arriving at the bridge, the bridge I go, [Name 010] said – all good, all good here at the Ebais, subject said – all good at the Ebais, ok here I go bridge going up now, [Name 010] said - all good all good here, subject said – here I come up, [Name 010] said – all good all good here, subject said – here I come here I come, [Name 010] said – all good, subject said - here I come up now, [Name 010] said - all good all good all good here, subject said – is everything good in [Name 166]?, [Name 010] said – yes, all good, subject said – how does Gara look, [Name 010] said – Gara I circled it twice and everything looks good, subject said – ok you go down, do the dam there like normal, [Name 010] said – ok, which way are you coming?, Subject said – here by the Ebais, subject said – let's go let's go, [Name 010] said – keep coming, what I need is for you to do it, subject said – go ahead you son of a bitch here it comes, here I go (mentions something but it's unintelligible), [Name 010] said – keep coming because I've got the bus here, so he can pass quickly, subject said – ok here I am here I am, [Name 010] said – keep coming keep coming, subject said – here I go, don't hang up I'm going to call the dwarf real quick, [Name 010] said – ok, keep coming keep coming, subject said – let him pass, let him pass, I'll let you know so you can do the dam, let him pass, hold on let me call [Name 264] don't hang up, [Name 010] said – go ahead go ahead, everything's fine here, subject said - all clear?, where are they heading because I'm here in [Name 166], [Name 010] said – go ahead, all good, I saw them I saw them, subject said – ah ok, go down, he's going down, I'm coming here by the [Name 061], go down now, [Name 010] said – get going get going, subject said – all clear?, [Name 010] said – all good, all good, go ahead, subject said – do the dam, do the dam, do the dam [Name 195], dude I'll call you, do the dam, do the dam, do the dam, I'm coming here by tica linda, tica linda do the dam, do the dam. Conversation ends\" [sic] (cf. pp. 466 to 467 of the judgment). Observe that in the first of the communications [Name 010] gives instructions to a third party to move to a certain place on the order of [Name 001]. In the second, it is noted that [Name 010] provides information to a third party about the status of a route along which both were traveling, so that he could drive safely. It is clear then for the majority of this Chamber that with these communications it is not possible to establish, objectively and without any margin of doubt, that on those occasions some drug transaction or transport was being carried out, because there is no other evidentiary element that corroborates that information. Despite what has been stated, they are important because they reaffirm the closeness and subordination of [Name 010] in relation to [Name 001], but even more importantly, they evidence the security work that [Name 010] provided within the organization and which was charged in the accusation by the Public Prosecutor's Office. The second transcribed communication is totally compatible with that function, because the defendant provides on-road information about some risk situation for the person traveling behind him. This dynamic is consistent with an event documented through several telephone communications that had occurred a few days earlier, properly on December 3, 2018, when [Name 001] was approached by administrative police officers, who escorted him in his vehicle to a police station in the locality of Tibás, which was reconstructed from the information generated by the communications with sequence numbers 0255028; at 8:46 p.m.; 0318379, at 8:53 p.m.; 0318381, at 8:56 p.m.; 0323442, at 9:00 p.m.: 0323443, at 9:04 p.m.; 0027474, at 9:10 p.m.; 0323450, at 9:22 p.m. and 0323451, at 9:26 p.m.\n\nFrom these records, as an important piece of information, it stands out that it was [Name 001] himself—who was under a telephone interception—who told a third party—whom he asked for legal advice, although he was not a lawyer—that they were transferring him to a police station, but that he was not carrying anything that could compromise him; in addition to the fact that [Name 010] told another member of the organization that when this situation occurred, he was riding a motorcycle and was also approached by police officers who allowed him to leave. Furthermore, it is evident that the apprehension of the alias “[Name 084]” was due to the fact that the security system implemented by the organization had failed and a timely warning was not given about the police action on the route he was traveling. With this information, it is clarified that [Name 001] was moving about free of objects that could compromise him, so it is clear that the logistics related to security matters were directed towards his person and not to the custody of drugs. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the *a quo* is correct in deeming that the first of the functions attributed to the defendant [Name 010], specifically regarding the security he provided to the leader of the criminal organization, was fully accredited. It is important to highlight that the appealing party **did not challenge** this point of the sentence, but rather their disagreement is centered on the other activity attributed to him, specifically the sale of drugs, since according to the defense's thesis, the lack of a seizure of any illicit substance associated with said individual prevented it from being accredited. Regarding that second task, the majority of this Chamber considers that the evidence considered by the trial court does not allow it to be verified, insofar as, for those purposes, only the content of several telephone communications was available, which were not supported by any other evidentiary element that would allow clarifying that, in effect, a drug transaction was being carried out. The reasoning made by the *a quo* consisted of the following: \"*It was alleged that on November 27, 2018, as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, he coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of a stash of narcotics, with the defendant giving instructions through the communication channel he used to coordinate the delivery of the drugs in exchange for an undetermined amount of money, **such accusation is considered proven based on the following calls**: from [Value 098].* \n\n*Calls identified with sequences 0313034 and 0313036, the intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 111], these calls were made at 6:42 p.m. and 6:46 p.m. respectively on November 27, 2018, from the calls the following stands out: first call “[Name 010] made a call to a female and said – Hello? Female: Where are you? [Name 010]: I'm arriving here at the school now. Female: Which side of the school? [Name 010]: What do you mean which side? Female: Just come down. [Name 010]: well, I'll be here at the school man, I'm arriving. Female: two hundred meters north of the school, come down there where there's a gravel road. [Name 010]: on the corner by the park? Female: No way. [Name 010]: What do you mean no way? Female: It's not further that way. [Name 010]: at the school. Extra telephone subject: tell her to get smart, we're not carrying candy. [Name 010]: don't you see you're stupid, I've got that stuff, man. Female: just come down here, are you with [Name 083]? [Name 010]: no, [Name 083] was busy. Female: come to the high school then. [Name 010]: ok, I'm going.\" Second call: “[Name 010]: here I am right at the high school. Female: man, just come down there, it's more of a breserío there, head down towards the north going down. [Name 010]: What do you mean towards the park? Female: no, downwards, are you right at the high school? [Name 010]: yes, right here at the very entrance. Female: instead of taking that street you came from the park, no, not even going towards the sabana the other one. [Name 010]: which one man? Female: a little way down, you see the veterinary clinic that's there, something like a veterinary clinic on the corner. [Name 010]: man, it's more like, don't be stupid, don't be stupid, Where are you? Female: man, down from the high school, north heading north, look down again man, don't you see a house on the corner that's like two stories a little way down, like where this thing is, how do I explain it. [Name 010]: why don't you come here to me instead? Female: because I have the money here and besides, that's a breserío there because a guy fell there recently ([Name 010] can't figure out the cardinal points) Female: do you see the small grocery store that's by the high school? [Name 010]: the what? Female: there's a small grocery store at the high school. [Name 010]: man, why don't you come to the very entrance and there we can agree where I give it to you. Female: mmmman but I'm home here at the very entrance. [Name 010]: I didn't know. Female: [Name 010], you're messing with me. [Name 010]: man don't be silly man, I'm right here man. Female: Where ratón? [Name 010]: right here at the very entrance on the other sidewalk man. Female: on which sidewalk, you jerk, if I'm coming up? [Name 010]: man, I'm right here man. Female: man, you made me come all the way up here. [Name 010]: man, where it says Escuela Nocturna. Female: I don't see anyone. [Name 010]: goddamn it. Female: Liceo de San José…. Extra telephone subject: there's a lot of cops, tell her no, to come to the Colegio Nocturno. Female: there are no cops here, it was going up the hill you'd take a right and come down like that to the very end. [Name 010]: What? Female: when you went up that steep hill when you come from over there. Extra telephone subject: don't be stupid deay let's go. [Name 010]: I'm going. Female; put him on.\" Regarding December 5, it is alleged that as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 5, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of at least one kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride for an amount close to ₡ 5,100,000.00 (five million one hundred thousand colones), to prove the accusation, the following call was available: “From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0300193. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service 61958199. This call was made at 11:17 a.m. on December 5, 2018. Female called [Name 010] and said – [Name 211] what's the price of the things? White ones, [Name 010] said – I don't know if there will be any, subject said – no but the price more or less, [Name 010] said – around five hundred, female said – ok, that's fine; they say goodbye. Communication ends.” Finally, it is alleged that as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 22, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of an amount close to one pound of Marijuana, for a sum close to ₡130,000.00 (one hundred thirty thousand colones), as evidentiary support for this, the following call is available: “From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0310069. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 111]. This call was made at 7:20 p.m. on December 22, 2018. [Name 010] made a call to a female. [Name 010] said - What? How did it go?, female said – How lazy of you, [Name 010] said - What's the latest?, female said – Deay just take it easy, deay I was talking the other time with that little animal of your boss, [Name 010] said – [Name 083]?, female said Yes -[Name 010] said – Your boss, sure you, female said – Ah well, [Name 010] said – That was before, Female said – Ah I don't know, [Name 010] said – And what?, female said – Man, you know I need a green L, this guy got me one but like I had to go run some errands in Chepe, the thing slipped my mind but I have the money, [Name 010] said – Let me check to see what's up, but that stuff, don't be stupid, there's none here you know, female said – Yes there is, [Name 212] gave me the tip but that he'd leave it for me at one hundred forty and that guy [Name 083] left me one at one hundred thirty that a buddy had and I don't know what and just now I asked him and he told me he already sold it, [Name 010] said – It's just that man here, well, well then I'll legally talk to a buddy, female said - And you know what the thing was, my cousin gave me that guy's number [Name 299], but you know I don't get along with [Name 299], that you were closer to that guy, he's a real son of a bitch, [Name 010] said – yeah yeah you know it, female said – So check for me, [Name 010] said - So what's the final word? Where are you living?*\"\n\n\"Right there?, the female said- No, in Heredia, [Name 010] said – aha, the female said - well I haven't lived there for a long time, [Name 010] said - Do you live alone?, the female said – No, What about you? What are you moving? You're not moving anything?, [Name 010] said – The damn thing, the female said – Ah idiot, I already saw the brat idiot, [Name 010] said – names there on the down low legally it's like, like all this girl, there in the scrape you know, evolving you know, the female said – [Name 265]'s brother is always into something, that chubby guy who deals hard, Joder said - Who? Whose little brother?, the female said– Balle's, [Name 010] said – Yeah, but he only sells you know crack, the female said – Yeah that's the one I need, [Name 010] said – Aha, Female said – Does he still live there?, to see if I drop by tomorrow, [Name 010] said – Yeah just call me and I'll get him for you, the female said – Is that your number? I'll come by tomorrow then, Joder said – Just let me know man you know that uuu uuu and that's it, female said – So tomorrow I'll come by there to see what's up. From minute 00:02:41 to minute 00:03:27. female said – Careful your boss doesn't hit you with a blow, [Name 010] said –What boss?, female said – [Name 083], [Name 010] said – Man don't be stupid, rather [Name 083] is my pupil, female said – Oh sure, [Name 010] said – Ah well let's leave it at that then, female said; They speak of matters without interest for the investigation, they say goodbye. Communication ends\". Regarding the investigation proceedings related to [Name 010], there was also the statement of investigator [Name 092], who declared in this regard: \"…upon seeing that the one going with [Name 001] was [Name 010], we were able to obtain [Name 010]'s phone right, we began to perceive how he said -this guy- [Name 010] says that this guy said to call 911 and say that those guys were armed, for us that was in order to rule out that the vehicle they had detected was from some police force, after this situation and thanks to the communications interception tool, it was possible to corroborate that the security devices we had documented were for the protection of [Name 001] and that it was also a fairly coordinated and organized group, where we were already detecting different functions, thus with the progress of the investigation and the wiretaps during the investigation period, hundreds of coordinations were captured regarding the transport, custody and protection of [Name 001], custodies that at some point were thwarted by the police as for example in the month of December of the year 2018..[…]..by the end of the year 2018, these communications by Mr. [Name 010] were captured regarding not only the planning but the commission of the act against a person on November 17, in these communications the dangerousness of the actions of [Name 010] and [Name 225] was evidenced, thus by the year 2019 we continued with operational tasks resulting from the interceptions carried out by the criminal judge and specifically regarding the topic of drug trafficking, for the months of January and February 2019 the communications of the investigated individuals were captured, they maintained the connotation of supplying the drug stash to other organizations…\". Making an analysis of the circumstances prior to the dates in question, in addition to the last mentioned calls, [Name 010] is considered first as an active member of the group led by Mr. [Name 001], in surveillance functions, security for transfers, interacting directly with [Name 001] since clearly in different calls where [Name 010] is the one conversing with another group member, Mr. [Name 001] was heard off-phone giving orders for [Name 010] to re-transmit them, it was thus that he came to have the degree of trust of the leader of the group, to the point of carrying out direct drug commercialization tasks as analyzed\" [sic] (cfr. pp. 482 to 487 of the judgment). From the previous passage it is confirmed what was pointed out lines above, in the sense that the only probationary input assessed to accredit the sale of drugs to third parties by [Name 010], were telephone communications intercepted by court order which, in his case, unlike what occurred with other defendants, is insufficient, because there was no form of external corroboration of its content. Faced with this scenario, in the judgment of the majority of this Chamber, it is not possible to sustain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that those telephone contacts resulted in true drug transactions, because they constitute indications that must be reinforced by other means to support their veracity, which did not happen. It is important to highlight that the commercialization of drugs by the organization was indeed fully accredited with the evidence incorporated into the adversarial proceedings, as analyzed in considerando X, dedicated to examining the legal situation of [Name 029], to which it refers for reading. In this, it was corroborated that there was an active supply of drugs, mainly cocaine, to other organizations so that they, in turn, would provide them to third parties. The a quo referred to this activity in the judgment when assessing the situation of [Name 010], with which it intended to extend these drug transfers to said defendant, to give meaning to the previously cited communications and derive that they were drug transactions. Clearly, this information is of utmost relevance, because it proves the main activity carried out by the criminal organization of which [Name 010] was a part and in which he assumed specific tasks, but, analyzing the body of evidence as a whole, on the part of the majority of this Tribunal, it cannot be extrapolated in the manner intended by the a quo, to give meaning to the communications in which said defendant interacts with third parties and determine, beyond all doubt, that it corresponded to drug transactions. This is so since the indicated conversations, even based on the circumstantial evidence structure available, do not allow reasonable hypotheses to be excluded, such as the existence of a narcotics negotiation that was never finalized by [Name 010], which would not be punishable. This authority is clear that in our criminal procedural system the principle of freedom of evidence operates, according to which facts can be proven by any element of evidence obtained lawfully, so it is not possible to require controlled purchases, seizures from third parties or some type of specific evidence to establish the retail drug sale attributed to [Name 010]. However, criminal prosecution corresponds to the Public Ministry and with it the burden of proof, which obliges it to provide lawful and sufficient elements that allow the reconstruction, in the plenary stage, of the fact intended to be proven, a task that was partially fulfilled with respect to this second function attributed to the defendant. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded then that the prosecutorial accusation, with respect to the conduct attributed to [Name 010], was reliably accredited only with respect to the security work for [Name 001], being the leader of the organization —not so the sale of drugs to third parties in the majority opinion—, which, for the reasons that will be explained below, is sufficient to sustain the criminal responsibility of the defendant at the level of co-perpetration (coautoría) in the activity of aggravated drug trafficking, provided for in numerals 58 in relation to 77 of Law No. 8204. In the Costa Rican legal system, numeral 45 defines co-perpetration (coautoría) as follows: \"The perpetrator of the punishable act typified as such is the one who carries it out by himself or using another or others, and co-perpetrators (coautores) are those who carry it out jointly with the perpetrator\". From the reading of the norm it is inferred that co-perpetration (coautoría) consists of a form of plural criminal participation. The object of co-perpetration (coautoría) is a collective act, carried out by several active subjects, which is integrated with the individual causal contribution. In this line, it is not required that each co-perpetrator (coautor) executes by himself the entirety of the typical action, but rather it is sufficient that, based on a common resolution and a functional distribution of work, he makes an essential contribution to the achievement of the crime. In the case of criminal acts carried out by criminal organizations, it is clear that their complexity prevents them from being executed alone, which is why it is necessary that they operate through a work distribution system. Thus, the head of the gang can be considered a co-perpetrator (coautor), as he participates in a common plan and is in charge of coordinating, organizing, providing resources, among others, therefore he has an essential function; but the member of the organization who makes a contribution, even if specialized and limited, but which contributes to the success of the illicit purpose, will also have that status. In this regard, doctrine states: \"Co-perpetrators (Coautores) do not commit different punishable acts, but rather they intervene in a common act. Their contributions to the act must be legally assessed as an action that is subsumed, as a whole, under the respective type […] its objective type is realized when the totality of the contributions to the act has caused the typical result in an objectively imputable manner. The question of whether the individual contribution to the act was a necessary condition of the result is irrelevant. Co-perpetrators (Coautores) are responsible for a result produced in common, even if the contribution to the act of each individual can be mentally suppressed without the result disappearing\" (Frister, Helmut. Derecho penal. Parte general. 1st ed., Buenos Aires, Hammurabi, 2011, p. 539). Thus, in the case of a criminal structure not all the co-perpetrators (coautores) carry out the typical verb directly. In crimes committed by criminal organizations, the center of gravity in the analysis of co-perpetration (coautoría), is no longer unequivocally in the essentiality of the contribution, but rather the issue of the division of tasks (some of which are a necessary step for others to be executed) comes into play as a consubstantial aspect of the degree of complexity of the organization. In narcotics trafficking, not everyone will commercialize or transport the drug, for example, but they can perform other indispensable contributions within the common plan, so that the contribution must be measured based on its necessity for the achievement of the collective act seen as a whole. Whoever provides security to the leader of a criminal organization prevents him from being neutralized, by the authorities or by rival groups, since this could cause the continuity of the criminal activity to be interrupted or truncated. The physical security of the leader enables him to continue issuing orders, organizing work, among others and with that, the entire structure continues to function successfully. So this role is not accessory, but structurally indispensable and, consequently, is integrated within the distribution of tasks that makes it possible to execute the main crime. In the case of the criminal organization led by [Name 001], it could be established that this was a subject of interest to the authorities, as could be verified with the police intervention carried out on December 3, 2018 —to which reference has been made in different sections of this pronouncement—, but also to those who operate outside the law and which is corroborated by the attack against his life he suffered on December 8, 2019, at the Tienda Monge business located near the Rotonda de Las Garantías Sociales. Said event highlighted how important it was within the criminal group to allocate resources to ensure the freedom of movement and personal integrity of its leader, through the custody that was exercised by other members of the gang, among them [Name 010], even in moments of recreation or leisure. Corollary of the foregoing, the function performed by [Name 010] places him as a co-perpetrator (coautor) of the main activity of the criminal organization led by [Name 001], that is, aggravated drug trafficking.\n\nBased on the foregoing, the appeal ground filed by the technical defense of said defendant is declared **without merit**. By majority, *sua sponte* (de oficio), the sentence imposed for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled, because even though the legal classification did not undergo any variation, the fact is that the delimitation of the defendant's criminal participation, established in this pronouncement, could have some impact on their criminal reproach, which is why it is appropriate that this point be re-substantiated. Judge Escalante Quirós issues a dissenting vote and, in declaring the aforementioned appeal ground without merit, does so without excluding any proven fact from the *a quo*.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With accentuated respect, I depart from the vote of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, only insofar as it was decided, *sua sponte*, to reduce the criminal liability of [Name 010], by exonerating them from a part of the facts proven in the judgment (events numbered as 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 of the ruling), annul the sentence imposed on them, and order a remand. My vote concurs with the majority, only, to declare without merit the third ground of the appeal by the private defense of [Name 010] and, for the following reasons, I depart from the sua sponte decision to reduce the criminal liability of the accused, as well as the two cited consequences that derive from it. As will be seen, I hold the thesis that the conviction of [Name 010] must remain intact. Starting from folio 456 of the judgment brought on appeal, the court substantiated the facts accredited against [Name 010], making it clear that they were identified on April 3, 2018, by virtue of surveillance of the movements of the organization's leader, [Name 001]. In this regard, report number IP-297-EN-18 is cited. On that occasion, [Name 010] drove the vehicle in which [Name 001] went to a penitentiary center in Desamparados to visit their romantic partner, an opportunity in which [Name 010] was approached by the police, identified, and a firearm they were carrying irregularly was seized. In the same vein, the court weighed that on November 2, 2018, [Name 010] was also observed in the vicinity of the same penitentiary center, just when [Name 001] made another visit there (report IP-320-EN-2018). Following that, the court relied on the statement of investigator [Name 092], who testified about the way in which [Name 010] was linked to the drug trafficking organization led by [Name 001]. Highly relevant in the court's reasoning is the linking of [Name 010] from when their phone was intercepted, denoting closeness with the leader, and the direct relationship with the leader's movements, as well as with other co-perpetrators also located in the highest echelons of the criminal pyramid. Thus, the ruling analyzes that when [Name 010] emerged in the investigation, it had already been accredited that the network was dedicated to drug trafficking and the laundering of proceeds from it, citing as an example the drug sale made to the organization of [Name 099], through [Name 029]. The judgment also invokes the receipt and management of the money obtained from drug sales, carried out by [Name 029] and their partner [Name 026], all of which occurred during the time that, according to the evidence – wiretapping and surveillance –, [Name 010] was linked as an active member of the criminal network of [Name 001], especially at the end of 2018 when they were related as a co-perpetrator of drug trafficking, in surveillance tasks, perimeter control, and security for the leader of the narco gang. This review of what the court weighed is necessary, in my view, because it contextualizes the evaluation that was later made of the calls intercepted from [Name 010], it being relevant to highlight that [Name 010]'s liability not only derives, from my point of view, from the content of the judicially captured communications, but rather its content is concluded with certainty, by placing the accused [Name 010] in a timeframe in which other means of evidence position them acting fully within the criminal organization, very close to the leader and alongside other main collaborators, when the network was trading drugs with other gangs, as exemplified by the *a quo*. Then, as will be seen, the evidentiary context leads to the accreditation that [Name 010] indeed was referring to drugs in the calls valued in the ruling, as the indicia come together to affirm it with certainty. [Name 010] makes coded reference to what they are heard commercializing, which is usual in this type of crime; furthermore, they mention a price that was also proven to be the price this criminal organization had for the sale of kilograms of cocaine – the babies or babys –, hence this joins the rest of the evidence analyzed by the court, as an indicium to affirm with certainty that they were indeed referring to drugs, just as the judging body deduced. Therefore, under my considerations, the judgment did clearly and substantively establish the responsibility of [Name 010], based on the union of the case's evidence, so that, in light of the content of the calls from the days of November 27, December 5 and 22, all of 2018, it can be concluded that reference was made to illicit drugs as part of their active role in the criminal network. Note that by that time the gang had already traded drugs several times, that [Name 010] was linked very closely to the most trusted members of the leader, and they did so with surveillance and custodial duties directly connected to the criminal labors and to the boss [Name 001], from which it is clear that their coded language can only be interpreted as drug sales, as the judgment pertinently substantiated. In sum, from my point of view, in declaring without merit the third ground of the appeal by the technical defense of [Name 010], none of the facts proven in the judgment should be excluded, maintaining intact the events demonstrated by the *a quo*, for which I clarify my vote in that sense, also departing from the majority's decision to annul the sentence imposed on them for drug trafficking.-\n\n**XXII. Second objection corresponding to the challenge filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva in favor of [Name 030].** He alleges “Violation of the principle of correlation between the notice of charges (intimación), accusation (acusación), and judgment.” The appellant points out the non-observance of articles 12, 13, 82 subsection a), 92, 326, and 365 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). He highlights that the right to defense includes 4 basic guarantees: a) principle of notice of charges (principio de intimación); b) principle of imputation (principio de imputación); c) right to be heard; and d) right to defense proper. He explains that based on Articles 82 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Third Chamber (ruling No. 446-02 of May 17, 2002; No. 613 of July 31, 2003; and No. 83-2020, among others), has understood that the accusation and the conviction must coincide, and, furthermore, that the right to notice of charges and imputation is generated from the very moment of the investigative statement (indagatoria). He refers that [Name 030] was charged and accused only for facts related to the activity of money laundering, never for predicate activities, such that they endured and prepared to repel that illicit act. For this reason, he indicates that they could not be convicted of the crime of drug trafficking, since they had no opportunity to produce evidence or prepare a defense strategy in relation to said figure. After citing various excerpts of interest from the section of accused events (folios 6, 10, 24, and 25 of the documentary judgment), the appellant explains that they were not in a position to exercise an effective defense of their client, since, from the notice-of-charges phase, including the formulation of the charging instrument, the conduct for which [Name 030] was convicted was not included. After mentioning excerpts of the facts accused against their client, Dr. Badilla Villanueva states that, throughout the entire process, they were charged with \"being the member of the alleged criminal organization dedicated to laundering assets\" (cfr. f. 7230), which is ratified by indicating the tasks in which their spouse, who also appeared as a defendant and was ultimately acquitted, collaborated. He recalls that the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in ruling No. 152-2000, ordered that a conviction for facts not contained in the charging instrument constitutes a violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment. With reference to folio 278 of the appealed ruling and to proven fact No. 5.6 (f. 299 of the judgment), the technical defense points out that, regarding [Name 030], only two specific actions were individualized against them: 1) that they \"appeared as a member of the criminal organization for whom, among other functions under the direction and supervision of the leader [Name 001], they were responsible for ensuring, through the acquisition of assets of high economic value, the insertion into the national economy and the financial system of the economic gains derived from the narco-activity executed by the organization; to this end, they sought the recruitment of unrelated third parties, who joined the organization as front men in whose names the various licit controls registered the assets acquired by the organization, registered in the name of front men who collaborated with the purpose of hiding the illicit origin of the funds through which the assets that were for the enjoyment of the criminal group were acquired\" [sic] (cfr. f. 7234 of the main file); 2) \"5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of assets acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030], carried out the necessary procedures for the purchase and registry inscription of the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TXL, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this asset at the agency Purdy Motor S.A. for the sum of ₵ 44,272,000.00 [...] vehicle that was designated by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001]\" [sic] (cfr. f. 7234 of the main file). He points out that, despite the fact that no facts specific to their client's participation in the crime of drug trafficking were charged or proven, in Considerando IV of the judgment (folios\n\n322 and following of said document) [Name 030] was convicted of drug trafficking, based on circumstances that were neither notified nor contained in the accusatory instrument and, beyond that, are also not included in the proven facts. It highlights that the judgment established that on October 26, 2019, [Name 030] transported drugs, but to reach that conviction, they refer solely to the content of a telephone interception in which the former would have referred to the smell emanating from the material in custody, from which the a quo infers that, without a doubt, the material transported was drugs (cfr. f. 7236). In short, the appellant argues that at no time were the conducts on which the trial court convicted his client notified or charged: “that a-) he negotiated vehicle changes for the organization b-) he negotiated bringing bulletproof glass from Guatemala to install it in the vehicle used by [Name 001], c-) he held meetings at his home and d-) that on October 26, 2019, using his cell phone, he directed a drug transport that was successfully completed” (cfr. f. 7237). He adds that it cannot be pretended that the deficiencies of the accusation are covered by the generic phrase that [Name 030] “was part of the criminal organization,” because such a reference does not comply with the obligation to charge the facts in a clear, precise, and detailed manner. Dr. Badilla Villanueva cites in support of his position, ruling no. 451-2023 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which unified criteria on the matter of correlation between accusation and judgment. He states, as a grievance, that since there is no detailed, precise, and concrete description of the facts on which [Name 030] was convicted of the crime of drug trafficking, he never had the opportunity to defend himself against these. He therefore requests that the judgment be revoked and that he be acquitted of said offense. The claim is granted. To respond to the complaint, it is necessary to outline the accused facts that link [Name 030], which —it is worth noting— coincide with those that were ultimately considered proven: “1. In the period between the months of April 2018 to October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to mid-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2. The operating model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: The storage and dosing of the drug caches acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of caches to the various points of sale. The sale of drug caches owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory. The sale of the drug caches owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug dependents, through the properties that the organization held for such purposes, “Bunker” type, as well as on public roads in the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for that purpose the use of various means to that end. 3. This drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramid form, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction, the sale of drugs and the safeguarding of the group over the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: […] [Name 030]: he figured as a member of the criminal organization to whom, among other functions, corresponded under the direction and supervision of the leader [Name 001], the procuring, through the acquisition of high economic value assets, of inserting into the national economy and the financial system the economic profits derived from the narco-activity executed by the organization; for that purpose he sought the recruitment of third-party outsiders, who joined the organization as fronts (testaferros) in whose name the assets acquired by the organization were registered in the various licit controls, registering them in the name of fronts who collaborated with the purpose of hiding the illicit origin of the funds through which the assets that were for the enjoyment of the criminal group were acquired […] 5.\n\nDuring the investigation period spanning from April 2018 to October 2020, the Criminal Organization formed by the investigated parties [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 161] (absent), [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046] (deceased), [Nombre 050] (absent), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, and transfer assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Nombre 001] […] 5.4 In the period from January 2018 to October 13, 2020, the accused [Nombre 001] designated the accused [Nombre 030] alias “[Nombre 241]” to carry out the necessary actions for the acquisition of high-value economic assets, using money proceeds from the illicit drug trade, and [Nombre 030] was also delegated the recruitment of third parties to lend their names and identities to register vehicles and assets in their names and thus cover up the illicit origin, assets whose purpose was the use and enjoyment of the accused [Nombre 001] and other members of the criminal group […] 5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of assets acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Nombre 030] undertook the necessary steps for the purchase and registration of the vehicle make Toyota, model Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Valor 031], in the name of the accused ([Nombre 019]), who acquired this asset at the Purdy Motor S.A agency for the sum of ₡44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was assigned by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Nombre 001] […] 6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, search, inspection, and seizure proceedings were conducted at the various points controlled by the criminal organization, resulting in the arrest of the defendants [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], and also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts, as set forth below […] 6.9 Regarding the results of the search, inspection, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 033], the following results were obtained and correspond to objects acquired with money proceeds from drug trafficking:\n\n• A Huawei brand telephone, blue color, with IMEI #1: 869892042128470, IMEI #2: 869892042148486, with a Claro brand SIM card numbered 8950603019910340834F.\n• A Samsung brand telephone, blue color, with IMEI number 359770/10/853192/7, with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered\n9506010919112543185. A Samsung brand telephone, red color, with IMEI number\n359770/10/648523/3 with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112767917.\n• A Samsung brand telephone, black color, with IMEI #1: 359060/09/653228/9, IMEI #2: 359061/09/653228f7, with a SIM card numbered 8950604302809752916.\n• An iPhone brand cell phone, black color, with a broken screen, without a visible serial number or IMEI, with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112612634.\n• A total amount of cash in the sum of $517 (Five hundred seventeen dollars) and ₡705,000.00 (seven hundred five thousand colones), money that was generated from the activity of drug trafficking.\n• A Samsung brand Tablet, gray color, model BT-PS100, with IMEI number 354077/05122539819. A Samsung brand telephone, black color, containing a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506011113211672736 and a 4GB SD card, Kingston brand.\n• An iPhone brand telephone, black color, with IMEI number 012851001506544, without a SIM card.\n• A Samsung brand telephone, black color, with IMEI number 355878105/66783512, with a Movistar brand SIM card numbered 8950604202704339761. A Nokia brand telephone, black color, model N8-00.\n• A USB storage device, ADATA brand, 16GB.\n• A USB storage device, Kingston brand DTSE-9, 16GB.\n• A USB storage device, Sandisk brand, 8GB. A USB storage device, Kingston brand Datatraveler, 2GB.\n• A 8GB microSD card. Two Adata brand microSD cards, 8GB each.\n• A Kingston brand microSD card, 2GB.\n• A Kingston brand microSD card, 16GB.\n• A Samsung brand microSD card, 16GB.\n• A Radioshack brand microSD card, 128GB.\n• An Adata Superior SH02 brand portable hard drive, black and white color.\n• A GPS detector, model k18, black color, with its respective charger and antenna.\n• An iPhone brand cell phone, gray color, with IMEI number 359234060064211, with a Movistar brand SIM card numbered 8950644027401423570.\n• A Samsung brand flat screen, black color, with serial number 086M3CBMA08590E, with its respective wall mount.\n• A Samsung brand curved television screen, black color, with serial number 07CU3CCDK809440D, with its respective wall mount.\n• Two hundred four 9.9 millimeter caliber rounds. Thirty-one .25 caliber rounds. Two hundred 5.56 millimeter caliber rounds. Thirty-three .40 caliber rounds. One hundred 7.62x39 millimeter caliber rounds. Four 7.7x26 millimeter caliber rounds.\n• A vehicle make Toyota, model Land Cruiser Prado TX-L, all-terrain, year 2020, white color, vehicle license plate [Valor 179], with VIN number JTEBH3FJ1L5105166, engine number 1KDB039378, with its respective documents (title deed, technical inspection report, and circulation permit).\n• A money receipt number 0355856, dated 04/29/2020, in the name of [Nombre 033], for an amount of fifty dollars, from the company Purdy Motor S.A. (cf. pages 276 to 315 of the judgment).\n\nBased on the foregoing statement of facts, the lower court (a quo) issued a conviction against [Nombre 030] for the crimes of aggravated drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Regarding the first of these offenses, which is the one challenged by the defense counsel and the defendant in the grounds currently under review, the trial court stated: \"For this court, the actions carried out by [Nombre 030] form part of the charge brought against all members of the criminal structure, which is: '…among other persons, they formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; zones in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for receiving money proceeds from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: • The storage and dosing of the drug shipments acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including supplying the shipments to the various points of sale. • The commercialization of drug shipments owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory…'\".\n\nIt must be kept in mind that it was demonstrated, through many surveillances, the presence of [Nombre 030] participating as a member of the criminal group; likewise, he performed key tasks as a trusted person, such as the maintenance of vehicles used by the criminal organization, the negotiation to change the models of some vehicles, the negotiation to bring armored glass from Guatemala to install in the vehicle used by [Nombre 001], the repeated meetings with the majority of the members of the criminal organization having as a meeting point the residence of Mr. [Nombre 030], meetings aimed at receiving the money proceeds from drug sales as was clearly reflected in calls between [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 050] and, as if that were not enough, clearly on October 26, 2019, [Nombre 030], using his cell phone which was intercepted, directed a drug transport that successfully ended with the delivery, since upon completing the route he told the driver of the vehicle carrying the drug the exact point where they were expected. All these conducts fall within the temporal scope of the indictment. By way of conclusion regarding [Nombre 030], it should not be forgotten that taking part in a criminal organization corresponds to the existence of a prior agreement and then performing specific functions constitutes the division of functions, being in this way a joint participation as co-perpetration (coautoría) exists, therefore his actions and contributions were indispensable and without them the goal of the organization would not have been fulfilled, thus, he is considered a co-perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas)» (cf. folios 767 to 768 of the judgment). As can be inferred from the preceding passage, the lower court (a quo) considered that, based on the initial facts set forth in the indictment, which describe the existence of the criminal organization and its mode of operation, it was possible to infer the charge of the crime of drug trafficking against the defendant [Nombre 030]. This Chamber differs from such assessment. The charge (imputación) in criminal matters constitutes one of the essential pillars of due process, as it facilitates the effective exercise of the right to technical and material defense of the individual charged. A correct charge implies that the indictment contains a clear, precise, and detailed account (relación clara, precisa y circunstanciada) of the facts constituting the crime, thereby delimiting the object of the proceedings; thus, the person named as the accused has the opportunity to understand the conduct attributed to them and to structure a defense strategy that allows them to contest it. Article 303 of the Código Procesal Penal in this regard states: «When the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) deems that the investigation provides grounds to bring the accused to public trial, it shall file the indictment requesting the opening of trial. The indictment must contain: [...] b) The precise and detailed account of the punishable act attributed.» This requirement imposed on the prosecuting body is not a mere formality, but a procedural guarantee that protects the defendant from facing a trial based on vague or imprecise charges. In this way, the aim is to prevent the criminal process, where the state's punitive power is exercised, from becoming a scenario of defenselessness, where the accused person may be surprised with a conviction based on charges they could not rebut, because they were unexpected or incomprehensible. Regarding the principle of the charge, this Chamber reiterates and shares the criterion expressed by the Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia de Cartago in resolution No. 2019-0093, at 10:49 hours on March 22, 2019, namely: «II. [...] the principle of the charge requires that the accused person clearly knows what they are being accused of, understood as the specific historical fact [...] The foregoing is so, in light of what the most authoritative doctrine establishes, according to which: \"...for someone to be able to defend themselves, it is essential that there be something to defend against: that is, something they are attributed to have done or omitted to do in the factual world, with significance in the legal world, a requirement known in criminal procedural law as the charge (imputación). The nucleus of that charge is, as has been observed, a factual hypothesis —an act or omission according to whether it is argued that it violates a prohibition or a mandate of the legal order— attributed to the accused, which, in the judgment of the person formulating it, leads to criminal-legal consequences, since it contains all the elements, according to criminal law, of a punishable act. A correctly formulated charge is the key that opens the door to the possibility of defending oneself efficiently, because it allows denying all or some of its elements to avoid or lessen the criminal-legal consequence to which, it is intended, it leads, or, alternatively, adding elements which, combined with those affirmed, also lead to avoiding the consequence or reducing it. But for the possibility of being heard to be an efficient means of exercising the defense, it cannot rest on a more or less vague or confused attribution of malice or enmity with the legal order, that is, an imprecise and disordered account of the act or omission charged to the accused, and much less on an abstraction (committed homicide or usurpation), resorting to the name of the infraction, but rather, on the contrary, must have as its presupposition the clear, precise, and detailed affirmation of a specific, singular event, from the life of a person. This means describing an occurrence —which is supposed to be real— with all the circumstances of manner, time, and place that locate it in the world of facts (temporally and spatially) and provide its concrete materiality; language must be used as descriptive of a specific event that has already occurred, locatable in time and space, and not to mention conceptual categories. Otherwise, the person being heard will not be able to attempt an efficient defense, since they will not be able to deny or affirm specific elements, but, at most, it will be possible for them to affirm or deny qualities or qualifiers (I am not a murderer, I am not bad, I am good, etc.)...\" (MAIER, Julio. Derecho Procesal Penal. Volume I. Editores del Puerto s.r.l. Second edition, Buenos Aires, pp. 553, 2002). Hence, a first conclusion that stands out is that a correct charge implies a phenomenological determination of a specific fact and not a mere abstraction that prevents knowing what one is being accused of». From this perspective, the criminal charge demands a phenomenological determination of the attributed fact, that is, it must be presented as a specific event, located in time and space, with information that allows the material and technical defense to understand the manner in which it occurred. The abstract or generic invocation of actions carried out within the criminal group is not enough —without a precise determination of who acted and what they did— but it must be specific and detailed, so that it can be contested, as only in this way is a real and effective defense guaranteed. Mere belonging to a criminal group does not constitute a carte blanche to assign each of its members the status of co-perpetrators in the totality of acts that could be committed within the organization. It is also necessary that the specific contribution made by each member has been charged and proven within the framework of the division of functions that is characteristic of group action. In this case, after studying the facts contained in the indictment —which are consistent with those held as proven—, this Chamber concludes that, as claimed by the appellants, the crime of aggravated drug trafficking was not charged against [Nombre 030] in it. Although the trial court considered that the first and second facts could give rise to the offense, the truth is that, due to the specific way in which this indictment was structured, what is observed is that those points have an introductory and contextual nature, because they contain a general description of the criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking and the way it operated, mentioning several people as its members, including [Nombre 030]. However, this reference, by itself, does not contain the description of a specific action individually reproachable to each person mentioned —and specifically to [Nombre 030]—, which could be subsumed under one of the statutory conducts contained in article 58 of Law No. 8204; rather, it serves a descriptive function, as a general framework, which positions the reader regarding the context of the criminal phenomenon that will be developed in subsequent facts. It is from the third fact onward, where the functions of each member of the organization are defined, that the specific actions that can be reproached to each of the accused begin to be specified. For these reasons, in the indictment filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office in this case, the first and second facts operate as a preamble to the criminal dynamics and not as a formulation of charges that can be considered independently in relation to the following points of the factual account, in which, as already stated, the actions carried out by each defendant are specified; consequently, it does not allow the principle of the charge to be deemed satisfied, because it does not consist of a clear, precise, and detailed description of a statutory act of aggravated drug trafficking. In light of the foregoing, the position adopted by the trial court is not acceptable, since this would empty an essential guarantee of due process of its content, by allowing a generic mention to be equated with a formal charge. Once again, it is insisted, the attribution of charges in a charging instrument must be express and should not be deduced from generic or tangential references.\n\nIt is not meant in any way that the facts alluded to have no function, for the truth is that, together with other events that unfold later, they do make it possible to understand the conduct attributed to each accused. What occurs, in the case of [Nombre 030], is that in the following points no description was made of actions related to drug trafficking, but only to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Thus, even though the evidence presented would have made it possible to attribute to the defendant additional criminal conduct beyond that actually charged, in particular: his participation in the activity of illegal trade of psychotropic substances, the lack of a formal accusation (imputación) constitutes an insurmountable impediment to assigning criminal liability for them. It is concluded that the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) did not charge [Nombre 030] with the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, which is why it was not feasible to issue a conviction for that crime. Based on the foregoing, the ground of appeal is declared with merit (con lugar); consequently, the conviction issued against [Nombre 030] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is revoked, as is the sentence imposed, and in its place, he is acquitted of all punishment and liability for that crime. \n\n**XXIII. Third ground of the appeal filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Nombre 030].** He alleges \"Lack of probative and intellectual reasoning (fundamentación probatoria intelectiva) by the lower court (a quo) leading to a defective material and legal motivation regarding the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking.\" The defense counsel affirms that, in accordance with our procedural design, the three levels of reasoning in a judgment—probative (descriptive and intellectual), factual (which requires linking the charged facts with the evidence to determine the proven facts), and legal—must maintain coherence with one another. On this topic, he cites ruling no. 2006-003 of the former Court of Criminal Cassation (Tribunal de Casación Penal) of the Second Judicial Circuit of Alajuela. He notes that according to Article 39 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), together with Articles 142, 178 subsection a), 361, and 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), the reasoning for each of these aspects is an essential requirement for the validity of the judgment. He explains that, in this case, there were never sufficient evidentiary elements to prove the crime of drug trafficking. Despite this, at folio 768 of the judgment, various actions are listed that are identified as having been carried out by [Nombre 030] and that the trial court deems essential for the operation of the organization dedicated to drug trafficking. However, none of this conduct formed part of the list of proven facts, a transcendental aspect that the lower court (a quo) tried to circumvent through two lines of reasoning: \"1.) that all of this conduct lies within the spatial-temporal framework of the investigation and 2.) that, in conclusion, it should not be forgotten that by being part of an alleged organization, [Nombre 030] acted according to a prior agreement and therefore his actions were an essential part of the perpetrator's plan [...] and thus he is considered a perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking\" (f. 7244). The appellant refers to the facts charged and proven in relation to [Nombre 030], visible at folios 277, 278, and 298 of the judgment document, and points out that these refer to the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), but do not relate to the specific conduct and the conclusions reached by the trial court for the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking. He notes that the lower court (a quo) established that on October 26, 2019, [Nombre 030] led the transport of a substance that gave off a bad odor and had to be guarded. From these two characteristics, the judges assumed that what was transported were drugs belonging to the organization. Dr. Badilla Villanueva argues that this syllogism is invalid, and furthermore, a factual situation that was never charged is taken as true, since the act of transportation was not included within the factual framework attributed to [Nombre 030]. He argues that the appealed ruling contains extensive verbatim transcriptions of the statement of OIJ officer [Nombre 092] (pp. 726-729), transcriptions of telephone conversations (pp. 743-745, 749-751 and 751-756), of the report on intercepted calls (pp. 733-736) as well as a police report (pp. 737-739), concluding that based on this investigative activity, it is determined that [Nombre 030] was part of the criminal organization. Likewise, it is affirmed that [Nombre 030] accompanied [Nombre 001] to visit his wife in the prison where she was held and that his home was visited by members of the criminal group, also alleging that \"his interest\" is seen in investing in vehicles. He highlights that the trial judges infer, without solid basis, that when he negotiated the purchase of armored windshields in Guatemala and said that before finalizing the purchase he had to ask for authorization, he was referring to [Nombre 001] as the ringleader of the group, which is nothing more than an interpretation by the lower court (a quo). It was also considered as evidence that [Nombre 030], [Nombre 033] and [Nombre 022] were together at the Monge Store located near the Rotonda de Las Garantías Sociales, on December 8, 2019. The defense counsel argues, in this regard, that the probative analysis included by the trial court between folios 767 and 768 of the judgment document is insufficient because it constitutes reasoning by transcription or mention of the content of the existing evidence, in particular police reports and telephone conversations, but without fulfilling the duty to justify why it assigns a certain value to the evidence. He points out that [Nombre 030] was convicted because he was located in surveillance operations with different members of the criminal organization at his home and other places, because he was occasionally seen in the company of [Nombre 001] and because on one occasion he made arrangements to buy polarized glass in Guatemala (despite the fact that the purchase was not finalized). Furthermore, because in October 2019 he participated in conversations regarding the transport of a material that gave off a bad odor. He maintains that all of these are equivocal pieces of evidence (indicios anfibológicos), according to what was indicated by the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) of the Supreme Court of Justice in ruling no. 822-2003 of September 22, 2003, insofar as they admit explanations different from the one chosen by the trial court. He reasons that both the nature of the material transported in October 2019, and the reason for the meetings at [Nombre 030]'s home, are analyzed from a perspective of Author-Based Criminal Law (Derecho Penal de autor). He indicates that the legal motivation for the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking, visible at folio 894 of the judgment, alludes to actions typical of money laundering and departs from the reasons previously indicated in the same ruling to try to justify participation in the crime of drug trafficking, including that he led an alleged transport of psychotropic substances in October 2019, that he tried to buy vehicles and armored glass; that he accompanied [Nombre 001] on visits to prison facilities and that he met with alleged members of the criminal group. This situation, in his opinion, evidences a lack of coordination between the proven facts, the factual reasoning, and the legal reasoning. The defense counsel maintains, as a grievance, that if the lower court (a quo) had not incurred the vice of reasoning indicated, it would have acquitted [Nombre 030] of the crime of drug trafficking. He requests that the ground of appeal be upheld and that the accused be acquitted directly in this venue. Alternatively, that a retrial (reenvío) be ordered. **First ground of the appeal of the judgment sent personally by the co-defendant [Nombre 030].** He claims \"Lack of factual reasoning in the judgment, due to the absence of proven facts that constitute or demonstrate any type of function, collaboration, or role within the group activity of possession of drugs for trafficking\" (f. 7362 front). The appellant alleges a violation of Articles 142, 143 and related articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). After transcribing the conduct attributed against him by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) (f. 7363 front and back), he points out that none of the actions attributed to [Nombre 030] correspond to any act related to the sale or distribution of drugs. He notes that the existence of a criminal organization that distributed drugs on a large scale through a conglomerate of \"bunkers\" that operated mainly in the sectors of Tibás, León XIII, Santo Domingo de Heredia and surrounding sites was taken as proven. He states that it is from folio 724 of the judgment document that the lower court (a quo) addresses the responsibility of [Nombre 030] in the acts constituting drug trafficking.\n\nAs a first element, the court alleges that [Name 030] participated on three occasions in “alleged acts of custody of the so-called leader [Name 001], while he was visiting his spouse at the Vilma Curling Women’s Penitentiary Center (El Buen Pastor)” (f. 7364 fte.). The judges derived this information primarily from the statement of judicial investigator [Name 092], who observed [Name 030] dropping off and later picking up [Name 001] from the indicated penal center. The appellant argues that said action is not criminal and is also completely unrelated to the crime under investigation, but rather was a favor done for a childhood friend. He explains that, furthermore, his telephone communications were intercepted and as a result the trial court used, as circumstantial evidence of interest to prove that [Name 030] formed part of the criminal organization, the conversations identified with sequence nos. 05388344, 04197726, and 05578602, which, from his perspective, were analyzed in an excessive and forced manner, to the point that the first of the indicated telephone conversations was not even effective or did not connect with the interlocutor. In addition to the foregoing, conversations of the accused in which he was recorded negotiating some licit good, such as, for example, the purchase or exchange of a vehicle with the Purdy Motors agency, were considered as circumstantial evidence. He adds that one of the main pieces of circumstantial evidence that the a quo took into account for the conviction of [Name 030] consists of a call made between the telephone number [Value 113] belonging to [Name 030], and [Value 112] registered to [Name 216] (call with sequence 04603491), which was captured on October 26, 2019. Said conversation was interpreted by the judges as support or assistance in the transportation of an undetermined illicit substance, specifically, for the benefit of the criminal organization, even going so far as to state that it was a drug stash, despite the fact that it was not explained how that determination was reached and that [Name 216] was never investigated or even mentioned as a person of interest in the investigation. He considers that the data yielded by the call dated October 26, 2019, are insufficient to establish that the accused assisted in the transportation of any type of drug. There is also no additional data or evidence to allow asserting that the illicit shipment—be it a substance, material, or even animal—was for the benefit of the criminal group, due to the lack of any other evidentiary element and because the police did not intercept said shipment. He states that the interpretation given by the trial judges to the call intercepted on October 26 is not the only possible one and, therefore, it constitutes ambiguous evidence. In his particular analysis of the intellectual evidentiary support for the conviction for the crime of drug trafficking, the appellant points out that it was based on the use of conversations captured with other persons who are also part of this proceeding, but regarding them, it is not indicated what unlawful conduct is extracted from the dialogues, nor are the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence specified. Within this analysis, the a quo gives special relevance to the conversations held between [Name 001] and [Name 030], but as occurs with the rest of the telephone interceptions, “logical leaps” are made between the transcription of the content of the conversation and the inferences made by the court, without any type of objective support. No effort is made to substantiate why it is held as true that [Name 030] acted under the hierarchical direction of [Name 001] and that his task was the recruitment of persons to assist in the legitimization of capital obtained from illegal drug trafficking, as the a quo had established it. He indicates that in the case of a call captured between [Name 001] and a subject identified as “[Name 244]”, it is assumed that when they refer to “the fat one (el gordo)”, they are talking about [Name 030]. In the case of the conversations held between [Name 030] and two saleswomen from the Purdy Motors Agency, named [Name 217] and “[Name 218]” (which are transcribed in the appeal, between fs. 7375 and 7376), the appellant notes that it cannot be understood—nor is it explained in the ruling—how from their content, which has to do with the coordination of maintenance, inquiries about the availability of spare parts or accessories such as a cooler for a vehicle, all of which are legal acts, the accused is linked to a task of coordinating said tasks for the criminal organization. The foregoing, especially because, as he indicates, both [Name 030] and his wife have been customers of the brand and have acquired Toyota vehicles since long ago. The accused also highlights, in exercising his material defense, the content of the telephone interception included from folio 751 of the documented sentence, in which [Name 030] was exploring the possibility of acquiring an armored windshield in Guatemala. For the appellate judges, said conversation is a clear indication that the accused intended to acquire said good to install it in vehicles of “the organization” (cfr. f. 7377), and it is even stated that when [Name 030] indicates that before finalizing the purchase, he must consult it with “that dude (aquel maje)” (f. 7378), he is referring to [Name 001], even though the latter’s name was not pronounced in the dialogue. It was also not investigated or analyzed whether said importation of a windshield or that of any vehicle was finalized. In another vein, the a quo used, to underpin the conviction, a large number of calls made from the control post of the Condominio Río Palma, the place of residence of the accused with his family, in order to determine the visits received by him between the months of November and December of the year 2019 (cfr. f. 757 of the documented sentence). The appellant indicates that, based on the entries to the home of [Name 030], the trial court concluded that he received constant visits from members of the alleged criminal organization, despite the fact that among the visitors were persons such as [Name 219], [Name 220], [Name 221], or [Name 222], who are not held to be members of the aforementioned group. In addition to the foregoing, he states that the reason for the visits is indeterminable for the judges, so it is unfounded to assert, as the a quo does, that the visits had the purpose of “coordinating the activity of a criminal group and the collection of money from the same group” (cfr. f. 7379), especially when, as he maintains, the visitors were his friends. Regarding the situation that occurred on December 8, 2019, at the facilities of Importadora Monge, located in Zapote, he points out that, according to the report of Investigator [Name 092], while [Name 001] and [Name 030], as well as the latter’s family, were at said location shopping, several unknown persons entered the site who fired shots indicating that it was a robbery. Said situation and the defensive attitude of [Name 030] towards his family and [Name 001] led the a quo to use the event as another piece of circumstantial evidence of his participation in the alleged criminal group. However, it is not reasoned how a traumatic event that cannot be ruled out as having been a robbery attempt in which the accused rather appear as victims, can be used as evidence to prove their participation in illegal drug trafficking. The appellant explains, based on the foregoing, that the intellectual evidentiary analysis of the conviction issued against [Name 030] is based on a conglomeration of data obtained from the statement of officer [Name 092], consisting of his own perceptions, which, it is indicated, find support in the police reports, without considering that said documents were drafted by the declarant himself. He alleges that “the factual and legal basis of my conviction for the crime of drug trafficking is composed 98 percent of the mention of some fragments of the declaration of [Name 092] and the transcription of some captured conversations, which in turn do not reveal that my person was linked to any criminal organization” (cfr. f. 7381). He maintains that, since the preliminary hearing, in response to a clarification requested by the judge of the intermediate stage, the prosecutor José Pablo Jiménez “indicated that my person was accused only of a crime of money laundering” (f.\n\n7382), which, he explains, was because the accusatory piece “did not contain any fact linking me to the crime of drug trafficking, and the only reference in the accusation was for alleged acts of money laundering” (ibid.). He adds that the evidence for the prosecution, including the testimonial evidence, never linked him to drug trafficking activity at the local level. He indicates that, based on the foregoing, he planned with his then legal counsel, Mr. Simón Angulo, a defense strategy aimed solely at combating the attribution of the crime of asset legitimization. Despite the foregoing, he was surprisingly convicted for the crimes of drug trafficking and capital legitimization, which caused him defenselessness, because he was not accused of acts constituting the first offense, nor did the evidence presented point to that criminal charge with respect to his person. **Any ruling is omitted as unnecessary.** In the grounds of appeal from the legal and material defense previously outlined, the lack of imputation for the crime of drug trafficking against [Name 030] is again questioned, a circumstance that was addressed when reviewing the second ground of the appeal filed by Dr. Pablo Badilla Villanueva on his behalf, and therefore reference is made to that section. Given the manner in which the aforementioned complaint was resolved, it is pointless to address the remaining claims raised by the appellants. Regardless of whether there are indications that, assessed together, could be useful to support the conviction of the accused for the crime of drug trafficking, the factual basis of the accusation constitutes an insurmountable limit that marks the scope of the trial court’s ruling. The specific functions of [Name 030] that can be extracted at the evidentiary level and that could be relevant to attribute to [Name 030] participation in that latter offense were not charged. This being so, the conviction of said defendant for the crime of an aggravated violation of the Psychotropic Substances Law was impossible. Consequently, as unnecessary, **any ruling is omitted** on the first ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Name 030] and the third ground of his legal defense’s appeal.\n\n**XXIV. Second ground of the appeal against the judgment filed personally by co-defendant [Name 030].** He alleges *“Insufficient and incorrect reasoning, by considering the commission of a crime of capital legitimization as proven, without defining the origin of the possible legitimized assets or assets to be legitimized.”* The appellant alleges that, starting from folio 835 of the judgment document, the factual and intellectual basis for the conviction for the crime of money laundering against [Name 030] is set forth. In this sense, he points out that the factual basis that supported the declaration of guilt for said crime consists of points 5.4 and 5.6, even though the criminal origin of the money or assets intended to be laundered is neither mentioned nor proven. He indicates that the transcription of the statements of investigator [Name 225] and expert Elizabeth Flores constitutes the bulk of the justification for the conviction judgment, without an analytical effort regarding the evidence being appreciated on the part of the *a quo*, and without differentiating the reasoning for the declaration of criminal responsibility for the charge of drug trafficking from that corresponding to capital legitimization. He argues that there is no evidence in the case file (calls, surveillance, seizures, or any investigative act) that makes it possible to consider it certain that [Name 001] issued orders or assignments to [Name 030], or handed him money for the acquisition of high-value assets for use by the organization, as stated in the judgment. After explaining that he obtains his economic income from a family security company that pays contributions independently to the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) and that part of his income also comes from the public transportation business he has with his wife, [Name 033] Ulate, the appellant states that he collaborated with his friend ([Name 019]) so that the latter could acquire the Toyota Prado vehicle, license plate [Value 031], at the Purdy Motors Agency, without knowing that he would later facilitate the use of the automobile to [Name 001]. He argues that his involvement in the purchase of the vehicle with license plate [Value 031], including partial payments made from his own funds, was done under the knowledge that his friend ([Name 019]) was the acquirer and immediate owner of said automobile. He insists that the partial payments made by [Name 030] and his wife, as installments toward the price of said vehicle, were made with their own funds obtained legally from their *“professional and commercial activities”* (cf. f. 7387). He argues that the sentencing court assumed without any type of analysis that the vehicle with license plate [Value 031] was bought with money of illicit origin, adopting for that purpose the conclusions of officer [Name 225] and expert Elizabeth Flores as its own. He argues that there was no interest in tracing the origin of the money and assets used in the purchase of the automobile, among them the Volkswagen vehicle with license plate [Value 114], which was delivered as part of the payment for the Toyota Prado with license plate [Value 031], which was the property of [Name 030]’s wife and had been acquired since 2016 through her own savings and financing. He further indicates that there is no basis to affirm that the automobile was acquired for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001], and even less that [Name 030] knew it was going to be used by him. According to the appellant, the purchase of the Toyota Prado in question was part of a commercial business deal agreed upon between him and ([Name 019]), in which the delivery of the vehicle with license plate [Value 114] was agreed upon as part of the payment. He adds that the fact that on December 3, 2019, the automobile with license plate [Value 031] was found in use by [Name 001] does not make it possible to assert that he was its permanent user. In this regard, he notes that, according to the investigation itself, the Toyota Prado was not found in the possession of [Name 001] after the raids, and even *“[Name 019], subsequently and while deprived of liberty, sold and transferred the Toyota Prado vehicle [Value 031] to a third party from whom it was seized by the OIJ days later”* [sic] (f. 7390). In addition to that, he considers that the interception of a telephone communication between [Name 001] and “[Name 312]” only allows one to infer that on December 3, 2019, [Name 001] was driving the Toyota Prado vehicle, without one being able to derive from that his permanent enjoyment, much less the knowledge of [Name 030]. He cites in support ruling no. 337-2016 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, while highlighting that, in the present case, it was not demonstrated that *“he had at his disposal any amount of money derived from a drug trafficking crime”* (f. 7392). He refers, as a grievance, that a penalty of 15 years in prison was imposed on him for a crime of capital legitimization *“that does not fit with the facts held as proven”* (f. 7393). He indicates that the conduct is atypical and is based on an erroneous foundation, *“principally due to a lack of analysis of the origin of the monies paid at the Purdy Motors Agency”* (*ibid*).\n\n**Fourth objection of the appeal against the judgment filed by Dr. Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030].** He alleges *“Lack of intellectual evidentiary reasoning that affects the factual and legal reasoning of the judgment in relation to the conviction of [Name 030] for a crime of capital legitimization.”* The appellant states that one of the normative elements of the crime in question is the proof that the funds used or assets laundered derive from a serious crime; therefore, mere suspicions are not sufficient. He indicates that, under the theory of limited accessoriality, it could not be required that a conviction judgment be provided in relation to the predicate crime specifying the exact form of illegal acquisition of the money, but it does require that the origin of the assets from a serious crime be proven and not merely presumed. On this point, he alleges that starting from folio 835 of the judgment document, the facts held as proven in relation to [Name 030] are indicated, but it is notably lacking to establish from what specific analysis of the evidence it could conclude the functions attributed to him within the organization, without the transcription of the statement given by various investigators at trial, as well as the police conclusions contained in several reports, being sufficient for that purpose. Specifically, the statement of [Name 225] was copied (fs. 836-838 of the judgment); of Rodrigo Chaves Calvo (fs. 838-841 of the judgment); of report 10-SLC-R-22-CPA-15-21 dated April 22, 2022 (fs. 841-842 of the judgment) and the expansion of this report (fs. 843-846 of the judgment). Reference was also made to the dynamics of the purchase of the Land Cruiser Prado vehicle, indicating that it was made with funds derived from drug trafficking and that [Name 030] contributed *“a payment of one thousand dollars in cash and other minor payments, and it was equally accepted that Mr. [Name 030] made a significant payment with the delivery of a Volkswagen Jetta car of his property”* (f. 7269). But it was not determined which element of evidence provided the inputs to be certain about the origin of the money. He states that the trial court concluded the commission of the crime of capital legitimization based on 3 elements: 1) the description of the contribution of funds by [Name 030]; 2) the registration of the vehicle in the name of a third party; 3) the vehicle in question was driven by [Name 001]. He emphasizes that, in the legal reasoning (f. 911 of the judgment), it seems to attribute the purchase of the automobile in question to [Name 030], and therefore it appears to apply to him the provisions of subsection a) of Article 69 of Law 8204. Likewise, the evidence presented by the defense to prove the legality of the funds used by [Name 030] to acquire his own property was disregarded. However, there is a total absence of intellectual evidentiary reasoning to prove that the acquisition of the Land Cruiser Prado vehicle was made with funds or assets derived from a criminal activity sanctioned with a penalty of 4 years or more, particularly drug trafficking. He raises, as a grievance, that adequate intellectual evidentiary reasoning would have led to determining the nonexistence of evidence to define where the money used *“in the only fact condemned as constituting a crime of capital legitimization”* came from. He requests that the ground be declared with merit, the judgment be deemed ineffective and invalid, and his client be acquitted of all penalty and responsibility for the crime of capital legitimization. Alternatively, he requests that a retrial be ordered dimensioning what is legally appropriate (cf. fs. 7273).\n\n**Fifth ground of the appeal filed by Dr. Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030].** He claims *“Incorrect application of Article 69 of Law 8204, for lack of fulfillment of the objective and subjective elements of this charge.”* After conducting a review of the crime of capital legitimization provided for in Law No. 8204, the appellant points out that, at the normative level, it is necessary that the assets of economic interest that are acquired, converted, or transferred in this charge derive from a serious crime (with a penalty equal to or greater than 4 years of imprisonment), and at the subjective level, it is necessary *“that the active subject knows the origin of this money and accepts its legitimization”* (f. 7276). He notes that, according to the recognized author Francisco Castillo, mere suspicion that the object derives from a punishable act is not sufficient. He cites, in support of his position, ruling no. 1191-2016 of the Sentence Appeals Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. He indicates that the appealed judgment does not address the examination of the proof of the illegal origin of the money used for the purchase of assets.\n\nOnly at folio 846 of the judgment is it noted that [Name 030] paid one thousand dollars toward the purchase of the Land Cruiser Prado vehicle on March 16, 2018, and that on March 11 of the same year, he had made another payment of the same amount. Furthermore, that later [Name 030] “*authorized the transfer of his advances in favor of* [Name 245] *for $7,000; the court concluding that these funds originated from drug trafficking (narcotráfico) activity*” (f. 7278). Finally, the defense argues that at folios 847 to 848 and 853 of the challenged ruling, the court asserts that [Name 030] instructed ([Name 019]) on how to proceed with the acquisition of the Land Cruiser Prado vehicle registered in the latter's name, with assets originating from the illicit activity of drug trafficking (narcotráfico) and knowing that the motor vehicle was going to be used by [Name 001]. It omits, however, “*any analysis regarding the proof that the money used in the purchase of this Land Cruiser vehicle and the vehicle given as a form of payment had illicit origin*” (cfr. f. 7278). He considers that, even if it is reasoned that some individuals related to the case engaged in illegal activities, that they would not have resources to buy high-end vehicles, and that the motor vehicle was used by a third party, “*this does not prove that the money that [Name 030] applied as a payment toward the purchase of this vehicle and the delivery of his vehicle as partial payment have a criminal origin*” (f. 7279). He alleges, as a grievance, that “*since it was not established that the money paid by [Name 030] for the purchase of the Land Cruiser and the vehicle given as payment owned by him were of illicit origin, there is an absence of the normative element of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), and therefore it is concluded that the conviction issued against [Name 030] is contrary to law and must be revoked due to being an atypical action*” (f. 7279). He requests that the sentence be revoked and his client be acquitted of the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), as it constitutes an atypical conduct (f. 7979-7280).\n\n**The objections raised against the trial judgment must be declared without merit**. Having analyzed the first-instance judgment issued by the *a quo* in its entirety, in the opinion of this Chamber, the claims raised by the defense do not proceed, because the intellectual foundation outlined to prove the criminal responsibility of [Name 030] for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is adequate, sufficient, and correctly structured. The participation of the defendant was addressed in two distinct sections of the judgment: the first entitled “*Regarding [Name 030] and the acts of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas)*” (cfr. fs. 724 to 768 of the judgment) and the second called “*Facts related to [Name 030] and [Name 019]*” (cfr. fs. 835 to 860 of the judgment). Before starting the corresponding analysis, it is important to point out that, although this Chamber concluded that the participation of the defendant [Name 030] in the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas) was not charged in the accusation—which constitutes an insurmountable impediment to issuing a conviction against him for that crime—this does not exclude the possibility of considering the reasoning expressed by the *a quo* on this matter, for the resolution of the remaining complaints raised by the legal and material defense, because the judgment constitutes a logical-legal unit. In the first of the aforementioned sections, a series of foundations were recorded that allow a better understanding of [Name 030]'s connection to the criminal organization and the functions he performed, which is closely related to the examination conducted by the trial court in the second section. The judgment states that, based on the evidence presented in the adversarial proceeding, it was able to determine that [Name 030] appeared in the investigation from its beginnings, when the judicial police located him accompanying [Name 001] to the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center (Centro de Atención Institucional Buen Pastor), during the visit made on June 29, 2018. The event was recorded in report IP-297-EN-19 (cfr. fs. 1 to 87 of the main file), of which an extensive transcription was made in the judgment. As an important detail, it is noted that the document recorded, as background, that in the year 2014 [Name 030] was arrested for the crime of illegal possession of a permitted weapon, an occasion on which he was accompanied by [Name 001], which reflects a pre-existing relationship between both subjects. The judgment also recorded a passage from police report IP-128-EN-19 (cfr. fs. 237 to 356 of the main file), from which it highlights that [Name 030] was linked to the alias “[Name 241]” because [Name 001] referred to him in that way in the intercepted communications (as in sequence 05388344, from telephone line [Value 115]); also with the aliases “[Name 241]” and “[Name 241]”, since the accused identified himself in that manner (in sequence 04197726, from telephone line [Value 115]). Also, that one of the telephone lines he used and whose interception was requested was [Value 115].\n\nBased on the evidence presented at trial, the lower court (a quo) was able to determine that the accused [Name 030] was one of the people closest to [Name 001], as he provided accompaniment on various occasions, such as on May 29, 2019, when he drove him in the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado T vehicle, with license plate [Value 065]—once again—to the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center. As on other occasions, the judicial police noted that a whole security operation unfolded around the alias “[Name 084],” since he was also accompanied by [Name 029], [Name 007], and ([Name 013]). A similar dynamic was recorded on June 12, 2019, and June 26, 2018, during visits by [Name 001] to the aforementioned prison, where he was driven by [Name 030], along with other subjects under investigation acting as escorts. These events were recorded in report IP-227-EN-19 (cf. pages 392 to 205 of the main file), from which various transcriptions were included in the judgment, among them one that accounts for a social activity carried out by the individuals under investigation at Club Alianza, in La Garita de Alajuela, on June 23, 2019. To complement the above and reinforce the existing relationship between [Name 030] and [Name 001], the following was set out in the judgment: “There is a direct telephone call between [Name 001] and [Name 030], which establishes that there was always direct communication between the two. The call is as follows: ‘From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 04900430. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 117]. This call was made at 10:05 a.m., on October 2, 2019. [Name 030], alias “[Name 241]”, spoke with [Name 001], alias “[Name 084],” holder of telephone line [Value 097]. [Name 241] said – Hello. [Name 001] said – Dude, where are you? [Name 241] said – Ah. [Name 001] said – Where are you? [Name 241] said – Who is this? [Name 001] said – Well, it's me, asshole. [Name 241] said – And didn't you say eleven? [Name 001] said – Well, imagine. [Name 241] said – You're kidding. [Name 001] said – Where are you? [Name 241] said – We're on our way, well, I'm here by the father-in-law's. [Name 001] said – Where? [Name 241] said – By the father-in-law's. [Name 001] said – Damn, the old man is closer, man. [Name 241] said – I'll call the old man to come right away. [Name 001] said – No, no, I already called the old man, asshole. [Name 241] said – So what? [Name 001] said – Just imagine, well, here's the advantage, I have the advantage, yes, I have the advantage but not for long, so come this way. [Name 241] said – But is the old man coming for you or what? [Name 001] said – He's coming for me, anyway I have the advantage because I have like five GAO motorcycles parked at the gate, I would tell [Name 065] to let them kill me but well, they could move at any moment, asshole. [Name 241] said – Where do I meet you then? [Name 001] said – Well, I'm here, asshole, where else am I going to be? [Name 241] said – Since you're saying the old man is going to pick you up. [Name 001] said – Yes, while he's on his way. [Name 241] said – Obviously he'll get there first. [Name 001] said – Come on your way. [Name 241] said – Alright, okay.’” (cf. page 748 of the judgment). From the previous communication, it is highlighted that [Name 001], upon noticing a police presence at his location, calls [Name 030] to find out where he is. The communication suggests that the individuals had arranged to meet and for that reason [Name 001] requires [Name 030]'s help to evade any action against him, as he mentions he has an advantage, but does not know for how long. Based on these elements of evidence, the trial court rightly concluded that [Name 030] was an active member of the criminal organization led by [Name 001] and one of the individuals closest to the latter.\n\nIn addition to the above, the lower court (a quo) took up an event that occurred on December 8, 2019, at approximately 17:30 hours, at the Monge Store business, located at the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales, when what the judicial police classified as an “attack” against [Name 001] took place, which is nothing more than an attempt on his life by several individuals traveling on motorcycles. The inquiries carried out by the judicial police determined that [Name 001] was in the business accompanied by [Name 022] and [Name 030], as well as a woman and a child. Because several gunshots were fired inside the commercial premises, the authorities were alerted and judicial agents arrived at the scene, who interviewed those present, among them [Name 030], who omitted to state that [Name 001] was at the site at the time of the event. The presence of the accused was established later, through the review of surveillance cameras. This circumstance, also assessed by the trial court, once again proves not only the relationship between the individuals, but also that [Name 030] tried to avoid any implication of [Name 001] with the situation that occurred, by not revealing to the police that he was at the location. The details of that event are recorded in report IP-017-EN-20 (cf. pages 1020 to 1283 of the investigation file), from which an extensive transcription appears in the judgment. According to said document, based on the interviews of those present at the site and the review of surveillance cameras, it was possible to verify that the aim of the gunmen was not to rob the commercial premises, but to attack [Name 001], [Name 030], and ([Name 013]), since the individuals entered the site looking for them and fired towards where they were, by the store's checkout area (cf. pages 760 to 767 of the judgment). Another important piece of information described in the instance ruling, referring to [Name 030], is that he was visited at his home by [Name 029], who, within the criminal organization, had as one of his functions making drug deliveries to other criminal organizations and receiving the corresponding payments—as recorded in Considerando X—an aspect that forms a direct connection with the source of the money he used for the acquisition of movable goods.\n\nIn addition to what has already been mentioned regarding the accompaniment and custody of [Name 030] toward [Name 001], the judgment reconstructs other activities that were carried out within the criminal structure. Among them, the maintenance of the vehicles used by the members of the criminal organization, not only the basic maintenance for its regular operation, but even the equipping with security implements such as armoring. In that regard, sequences 03102816, 05209266, 05857621, 0795371 —related to ordinary vehicle maintenance— , 3026360, 05583055, 04499697 —linked to the purchase of provided windows— , all from the intercepted line [Value 123]. It is importantly noted that, regarding the purchase of the windows, [Name 030] states that he must discuss it with \"el mae,\" which is the way the members of the organization referred to [Name 001], thereby reinforcing what was already analyzed in the judgment about the relationship of these subjects, but of even greater relevance, the hierarchy of the latter.\n\nOn the other hand, from a series of intercepted communications —sequences 04603491, 02301721, 03201613, 03102039, 05401649, 03604476, 05401658, 03001602, 04201727 and 04301687, from telephone line [Value 116], associated with [Name 030]— the *a quo* concludes that on October 26, 2019, the defendant [Name 030] participated in a drug transport. Although this Chamber considers that with the analyzed information it cannot be stated with absolute certainty that this was the activity being carried out by the defendant, given the lack of corroboration from other sources, the truth is that it does constitute a strong indication of his participation in activities that are not of a licit nature and hence the clandestine action reflected in those conversations. Other functions that the court reconstructed from the evidence presented at the adversarial hearing, and which is an important approximation to the actions actually attributed to the subject, consist of the purchase and sale of motor vehicles. Due to its relevance, the passage from the judgment on this particular matter is transcribed: \"*Continuing with the telephone intervention of Mr. [Name 030], calls stand out in which he shows interest in investing in the purchase of heavy vehicles and negotiating light vehicles, which were transcribed as follows: 'From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 02401985. The intercepted telephone line is in communication with the user of telephone service [Value 118]. This call was made at 14:50 hours, on the day of November 1, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]” made a call to Unidentified Subject, user of telephone line [Value 118]. [Name 030] asks about a truck that is for sale, in Sarapiquí, which has a Caterpillar brand engine, he asked if that is the best cash price and when they can go see it, the Subject tells him to give him the number to send him photos. From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 05701796. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 117]. This call was made at 08:56 hours, on the day of October 29, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]/[Name 241]” made a call to telephone line [Value 117], which belongs to Toyo Occidente, where he spoke with an operator. They start talking about aspects that are not relevant until minute 00:01:46, Operator said – with whom do I have the pleasure excuse me, [Name 030] said -[Name 030], Operator said -[Name 053], [Name 030] said eight four seven eight thirty nine five ([Value 116]), Operator said -thirty nine five, Prado TXL, two thousand eighteen, , [Name 030] said -how much do you receive for that two thousand fifteen, Operator said -it is national, [Name 030] said -yes national, bought there at the Toyota, they continue talking about aspects that are not relevant until minute 00:02:42, Operator said -I have to consult, if you like give me the license plate number and I will be sending you the information via Whatsapp, [Name 231] said -yes so that I can start getting familiar with that right away, Operator said -yes of course, [Name 030] said -he says that, (extra call he asked, what is the license plate of this car love), [Value 065], they continue talking about aspects that are not relevant. From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 03901735. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 119]. This call was made at 15:28 hours, on the day of October 29, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]/[Name 241]” made a call to Unidentified Subject, user of telephone line [Value 119]. Subject said -hello, good afternoon, [Name 030] said -good afternoon friend, the truck you sell, Subject said -yes sir, [Name 030] said -is it manual or automatic, Subject said -automatic, [Name 030] said -ah it is automatic, Subject said -I have the damper or bellhousing, whatever it's called, and the pedals in case they want to do it, [Name 030] said -manual, Subject said -yes, just that part is worth like two hundred thousand, unintelligible, zero nine, one ten, [Name 030] said -ok ok, well I'm going to ask and I'll return your call whatever the case, thanks, Subject said -if you want to see it or anything you let me know, I'm here in Guápiles, where are you from, [Name 030] said -San José, but still I'm going to consult with my friend to see what he says, Subject said -push it push it and I'll quietly throw you a hundred thousand there, [Name 030] said -thanks, well thanks. From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 05801793. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 120]. This call was made at 18:34 hours, on the day of October 29, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]/[Name 241]” made a call to a Subject Identified as [Name 232], user of telephone line [Value 120]. [Name 030] spoke with the subject about the purchase of a Freightliner truck, manual, ten-speed, [Name 030] offers him a Toyota Yaris 2002 as part of the deal, the subject indicated that it is located in San Rafael de Alajuela, also [Name 030] told him that he was going to send him the number so he could send him the location. From [Value 116]. Call identified with sequence number 05001633. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 117]. This call was made at 16:27 hours, on the day of October 7, 2019. [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]” spoke with a subject who is a user of telephone line [Value 117]. Alias [Name 241] requested information about Prado TXL 2018 and Prado TX 2018 vehicles. The subject indicated to him that both vehicles were already sold. [Name 241] consulted the price of the 2018 Prado to calculate. The subject indicated to him that they are around sixty-four thousand dollars. [Name 241] asked if they received. Subject told him yes'* (cfr. pp. 763 to 745 of the judgment)*. One of the communications that stands out for its relevance and content is the following: \"*The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 121]. This call was made at 13:08 hours on May 16, 2019.*\n\nSubject spoke with [Nombre 241], subject said – man [Nombre 233] everything good?, [Nombre 241] said – yeah, go ahead, everything's cool, subject said – man I got a buyer for the BM man for twenty-seven five hundred, [Nombre 241] said – man but it's just that, you know what the thing is, it's that right now it's not good for me to sell it like that anymore, subject said – uh-huh, [Nombre 241] said – that honestly to hand it over for that cash, let's see, it's gonna be more of a hassle for me, subject said – how do you mean? how do you mean?, [Nombre 241] said – hand it over I mean sell it to hand over that cash it's gonna be more of a hassle and that's it, it's for tomorrow at one, that's just it man, subject said – it's not good for you to sell it?, [Nombre 241] said – no, it's no good for me anymore man, that would have worked for me before, right now it doesn't, subject said – yeah man I just now got that guy's number, some girl who works at the Mercedes dealership man, [Nombre 241] said – uh-huh, subject said – yeah man and she has a Mercedes and says man what is he buying himself? man a Prado I tell him a a Prado and I sent him a photo of a BM, tell him to come buy this Mercedes man, [Nombre 241] said – what a shame huh, yeah but oh well everything's already set man, subject said – that sucks and like, can't he even come with the dough?, [Nombre 241] said – well it's just that no because imagine me handing over that dough, plus that car isn't in my name, it's gonna be more of a hassle, subject said – no, what the guy says is just that, like it's just a power of attorney, [Nombre 241] said – no, but yeah understand but so you understand me, the car isn't in my name so me getting that cash, imagine me depositing that cash, from now until tomorrow it's not enough time, no way, never, you understand me?, subject said – haa it's because it isn't in your name, [Nombre 241] said – no, so if I go to deposit that cash at Toyota they're gonna ask me, like imagine, it's gonna be a hassle, in the sense that, well yeah like where did I get it and the whole thing so I sold a car but the car isn't in my name, subject said – yeah, and the Prado are you gonna put it in your name or?, [Nombre 241] said – in the wife's name, subject said – haaa ok, in your, [Nombre 241] said – right now what's best is just handing over the car because any issue, well no, you're trading in a car, nothing happens there, it's not the same as depositing the cash all at once, subject said – mmm I see I see I see, [Nombre 241] said – if it had been a bit earlier yeah because it gives me the chance to deposit the cash in installments but we're already set for tomorrow man, it's always like that when you're gonna do something someone always shows up, subject said – man yeah what a shitty situation man, but it's just that this guy man, man and it was on facebook that I saw the guy today man, [Nombre 241] said – uh-huh, subject said – I saw him on facebook man so I sent him a message and told him so we were talking there and he tells me man so then I told him man look you're at the Mercedes dealership, I have this and that BM and he tells me man I have a reseller, [Nombre 241] said – yeah, what a shame subject said – I have a reseller for that man, yeah man, [Nombre 241] said – that sucks it would have been everything, oh well maybe next time huh, subject said – yeah man, and the guy says tell him that, that he gives him, I have a Mercedes right here for the Prado he says (they talk about matters of no interest)» (cfr. fs. 734 to 735 of the judgment). In this communication [Nombre 030] talks with a third party about the difficulties posed by using cash proceeds from the sale of a vehicle, because it was not in his name. This conduct is clearly compatible with the function attributed to him, which consists of logistics for registering assets of the criminal organization in the name of third parties and in this way diluting the trace of money from criminal activity. As a complement, the following information recorded in the judgment: «Other links of [Nombre 030] with the organization led by [Nombre 001] were evidenced by the following call: “From [Valor 097]. Call identified with sequence number 0205741. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 122]. This call was made at 20:26 hours on July 17, 2019. [Nombre 001] alias “[Nombre 084]” made a call to Subject Identified as “[Nombre 234]”, from which the following can be extracted: [Nombre 234] said -Hello, [Nombre 001] said -go ahead, [Nombre 234] said -eeeh ok, it's done, we still need the thing about, the thing about, to see if we can talk to “[Nombre 235]”, he says, what's his name “[Nombre 241]”, [Nombre 001] said -the fat guy, the fat guy, [Nombre 234] said -well the fat guy, yeah to see if we can talk to him, the, the girl, the chick, already sent me the accounts right, I also asked her to send me her husband's, [Nombre 001] said -yes, yes, yes, [Nombre 234] said -we have ten people, adults, right, [Nombre 001] said -yes, but let's talk better in person, when, [Nombre 234] said -ready, eeh eeh, you tell me, [Nombre 001] said -well I'll call you right now, to see if I can I'll call you right now, anytime, [Nombre 234] said -ready, ready, ready, [Nombre 001] said -good. Communication ends.”\n\nIn the previous call [Name 001] speaks with the person identified as [Name 234] who told him that he got 10 adults, [Name 001] tells him that it is better to discuss it in person, in the context of the call [Name 001] clearly avoids the subject since he does not usually talk about illegal matters over the phone, [Name 234] makes reference to the fact that they should speak with the fat guy who was precisely one of the aliases of [Name 030], but in addition she [Name 244] stated that she already had 10 persons of legal age, which relates to the fact that [Name 030] was the appointee of [Name 001] for locating persons to lend their identity and appear as frontmen (testaferros) as will be elaborated upon in the section on money laundering (legitimación de capitales)\" (cf. pp. 748 to 749 of the judgment). This passage constitutes additional reinforcement of that role of recruiter of frontmen (testaferros) on the part of the accused, who, as indicated supra, goes by the aliases of \"[Name 241]\" and \"[Name 241]\", since a third party speaks with [Name 001] about the location of 10 persons for a purpose that cannot be discussed over the phone and which must be coordinated with [Name 030], thereby again alluding to actions of an irregular nature. Here it is necessary to indicate that in other sections of the judgment it was pointed out that [Name 001], in intercepted communications, made reference to the suspicion that he was being subjected to an intervention, which makes total sense that he refused to speak of any illegal activity over the phone. All of the above information, which comes from the section of the judgment called \"Regarding [Name 030] and the facts of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas)\", allows one to derive that [Name 030] is a member of the criminal organization and a person of utmost trust to [Name 001], because he is one of the subjects who provides custody and is in charge of his security. It is evident then that he knows of the criminal activities that the latter carries out and that have even made him the target of attempts against his life, which is the reason for the necessity of armoring his means of transport and having a constant escort. Note that even in one of the residences associated with [Name 001], specifically the one located in Ciudadela León XIII which is characterized as a five-story residence, a motor vehicle with armoring (blindaje) devices was located. In that regard, the judgment details: \"[Name 001] manages to maintain in his fleet another vehicle that is used in the criminal actions that narcotics trafficking (narcotráfico) demands of him, the first thing that must be made clear is that this vehicle was found in the residence located in León Trece, in the garage of the five-story house owned by [Name 001], as is verified since it was seized through seizure report number 0053502, this vehicle like the previous one was acquired with money from the profits of narcotics trafficking (narcotráfico) and has been used for the criminal actions investigated and accredited, it even maintains the same pattern regarding the owner since it is registered in the name of [Name 236], as a particularity said motor vehicle maintains a level of security of the armoring (blindaje) type, which guarantees ballistic protection against firearms, a situation that was reflected in the communications that were heard during the trial in which on at least one occasion members of the organization dealt with the acquisition of this type of security, in the following communication it is again seen that it is the defendant [Name 030] who is in charge of this: From [Value 123]. Call identified with sequence number 04499697. The intervened telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 124]. This call was made at 10:09 hours on the 16th of July, 2019. [Name 030] alias \"[Name 241]\" spoke with an unidentified subject. [Name 241] said – Aha. Subject said – Hey [Name 030], all good. [Name 241] said – Aha. Subject said—That, he told the man. [Name 241] said – Yes I'll wait to notify to see what he's going to do. Subject said – Otherwise it's that thing, [Name 030] (unintelligible) I think one more day, because removing those two windows from there the armored (blindados) ones is a real pain in the ass you know. And then the other thing is to attach them, it takes a shitload of material that's why it comes out cheap but it's worth it, rather it comes out cheap. [Name 241] said – Aha no no if he told me that it was going to be that, he better take charge of sending them, that you just (unintelligible) but then- Subject asked – He stores them. [Name 241] said – Ah. Subject said – He stores them, he. [Name 241] said – No, that you get them stored and all that. That he just asks that they be sent to him from there, he says that surely that comes by land, they are going to send them. Subject said – Okay then just let him tell me so I can give him our details so that he, he. [Name 241] said – Yes, send me the details, because he told me yes, that by plane how would it be, that if not tell the people to send them by plane. Subject said – I mean you saw the company it says there Cropa. [Name 241] said – Aha. Subject said – A Cropa card, you tell me and I call Cropa, look so-and-so they are going to drop a shipment there for me, send it to me. [Name 241] said – But who is Cropa. Subject said – Cropa is a company there in Guatemala. [Name 241] said – That is in charge of sending here. Subject said – Aha and they know how to do all the paperwork both overland and air, okay you tell me and I talk to Cropa, I tell them okay [Name 030], Cropa is asking me for the invoice this, send me the shipment or rather they will come pick it up and they come to pick it up, they pick it up, bam, they send it to me, okay [Name 030] the shipment is already here man, you have to pay so much in taxes deposit it to such an account and go. [Name 241] said – It's called Cropa. Subject said – Cropa, yes exactly. [Name 241] said – I don't know what the tangle is that he says is that they send it to him, they only asked him for that, the license for that thing and that's it. Subject said – I'm going to send you the corporate identity (cédula jurídica) number for armoring (blindaje), it's that man, [Name 238] what happens man, from experience I know that they have brought shit from Guatemala that has been a mess from Guatemala, I would recommend to this guy, that if he wants to have that quickly and not have so many problems, man, do it through Cropa who already has the experience and they know, they know how the thing is done. [Name 241] said – Through Cropa. Subject said - Cropa yes, there in the photos that I sent you yesterday. [Name 241] said – What would he have to do, supposing that there in Guatemala they come and drop that off there. Subject said – Man here I have the invoice, okay where is the merchandise, I call Cropa, look man I need you to go to such a place in Guatemala, pick up that shipment for me, they deliver the invoice to them, send it to me to Costa Rica either by air or land, they handle both and that's the whole thing. And Cropa. [Name 241] said The man is not here, he's coming until Thursday. Better that he is here and hears you better so he can talk. Subject said – Yes yes man exactly, because Cropa and imagine that the factory is large there, I called and asked him what documents were requested from these guys. I don't know what needs to be done, they send it all to him, Cropa takes care of doing all the documents. [Name 241] said – Okay okay I'm going to tell him better when he comes to see what he says. Subject said – Tell him to call me directly and I'll explain to him, all good. [Name 241] said – Alright, okay good\" (…); it is evidenced that the organization was indeed accessing the use of this type of armored security glass, which corresponds to what was argued in Report No. 25-SLC-CI-20 AMP I C INV 63-19, in addition to that according to Report No. 10-SLC-R-22 and its extension AMP I, C PA 15-21\" (cf. pp. 827 to 828 of the judgment). Precisely due to the weight of these antecedents, regarding the knowledge of [Name 030] of the criminal activities of the organization and above all, of the role played by [Name 001], it was necessary to outline them, because it is from there that the money with which various high-value goods were acquired proceeds. In that sense, the lower court (a quo) ruled out that the accused had other lawful sources of income to justify the acquisition of the goods that were identified during the investigation period. It is now appropriate to verify what is indicated in the judgment, in the section \"Facts that relate to [Name 030] and [Name 019]\", where a more concrete analysis was carried out on the following imputed facts: \"5.4 In the period between the month of January of the year 2018 and until October 13 of the year 2020, the accused [Name 001] appointed the accused [Name 030] alias \"[Name 241]\" in order for him to carry out the actions necessary for the acquisition of goods of high economic value, this with money derived from the illicit commerce of narcotics (estupefacientes), likewise the recruitment of third persons who would facilitate their name and identity was delegated to [Name 030] to register vehicles and goods in their name and thus conceal the illicit origin, goods that were intended for the use and enjoyment of the accused [Name 001] and other members of the criminal group […] 5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of goods acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030], carried out the necessary steps for the purchase and registry of the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this good at the agency Purdy Motor S.A for the sum of ¢44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was assigned by the criminal group, for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001]\" (cf. pp. 298 to 299 of the judgment).\n\nBased on the statement of the judicial investigator [Name 225], of the experts Rodrigo Chaves Calvo and Elizabeth Segura González from the Specialized Office against Organized Crime, as well as police report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 dated April 22, 2022 (cf. ff. 3735 to 3758), the *a quo* reconstructed the manner in which the vehicle, make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 125], was obtained. It was established that the vehicle was acquired by [Name 030] and [Name 019] from the agency Purdy Motor S. A. for the sum of ₡ 44,272,000.00. A part of the vehicle was paid for in cash, specifically $26,000 —$4,000 for a down payment (prima)— and $24,000 for the receipt of a vehicle. The connection that the *a quo* makes between [Name 030] and the acquisition of the asset lies in the fact that, according to the file from the agency Purdy Motors, seized in the present matter, it is detailed that it was he who first reserved the vehicle and provided the initial payment for those purposes: \"*according to invoice No. 1006462, of March 16, 2018, Mr. [Name 030], made the payment in cash of ONE THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS ($1,000.00), noting the legend 'reservation (separación) new VH EXPO', that is to say, on March 16, 2018, [Name 030] attended the Expo móvil and reserved or set aside said vehicle, prior to which he had made the deposit as recorded on folio No. 06. Invoice No. 1006187, of March 11, 2018, where Mr. [Name 030] made the payment in cash of ONE THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS ($1,000.00)*\" (cf. f. 846 of the judgment). Furthermore, there is proof that [Name 030] transferred this and another advance payment to the benefit of [Name 019] for the purchase of the motor vehicle of interest: \"*Folio No. 18. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26734, of July 5, 2019, with advance No. EXP-00007989, where client [Name 030], transferred the advance to [Name 019], for the sum of ONE THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS ($1,000.00). Folio No. 20. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26713, without a date record, with advance No. PCO-00597833 and EXP-00008265, where client [Name 030], transferred the advance to [Name 019], the sum of SIX THOUSAND AMERICAN DOLLARS ($6,000.00)*\" (cf. f. 847 of the judgment). Similarly, [Name 033], wife of [Name 030], also made the transfer of a sum of $23,000 to the benefit of [Name 019], which corresponds to the amount at which the vehicle, make Volkswagen, style Jetta MK6, 2016 model, color white, license plate [Value 126], was received as part of the payment. All this information was extracted from the extension of report 10-SLC-R-2-CPA-15-21 (cf. ff. 3764 to 3792 of the main file), as well as from the statement given at trial by officials of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial). On this point, the trial court aptly concluded: \"*analyzing the statements of the judicial officials as well as the reports from the Capital Legitimization Section (Sección de Legitimación de Capitales), one can perfectly conclude with a degree of certainty that, regarding the acquisition of the vehicle with plates [Value 031], the accused [Name 030], to conceal the illicit origin of the money, carried out the necessary steps for the purchase and registry inscription of the vehicle, make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TXL, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019])*\" (cf. f. 746 of the judgment). In the opinion of this Chamber, it would not be feasible to reach a different conclusion, as proposed by the appellants, because to the foregoing is added that the investigation carried out by the Judicial Investigation Organization ruled out that ([Name 019]) had an economic profile that would allow him to obtain an asset of such high value; hence, the transfer of the cash advances made to his benefit by [Name 030] also lacks a reasonable explanation. The defendant [Name 019] made several cash payments, for amounts of $4,500, $6,000, $5,000, and $3,000, without there being any justification for him to handle those sums of money, which is consistent with the function of a front man (testaferro), who is limited solely to lending his name to represent another in a business, transaction, or activity. In this context, it then makes sense that the vehicle was reserved by [Name 030] and that he made the initial payment, but chose to have it registered under a third party's name and therefore transferred those advances to his name. To the foregoing is added that ([Name 019]) was linked to the acquisition of another motor vehicle, specifically the make BMW, style X-5, license plate [Value 127], which was ultimately registered under the name of the accused ([Name 016]), evidencing that the intervention of [Name 019] was not accidental, as the defense intends to portray, claiming that [Name 030] was doing the subject a favor, since the truth is that he was a member of the structure who precisely had the function of assisting in the acquisition of assets, to dilute the trace of the illicit nature of the money with which they were obtained. In the case of [Name 030], although he does have a history of lawful remunerative activities, these also do not justify the acquisition of an asset of the value of the one at hand, which, it is worth highlighting, was not the only one of that nature with which he was associated. By analyzing the manner in which the motor vehicle was acquired, which was reserved by [Name 030], who, as already indicated, transferred various sums of money to the benefit of [Name 019], it is also possible to establish the direct connection of said subject with the legal transaction (negocio jurídico), as he was the person who brokered it.\n\nThe trial court (a quo) also established that the motor vehicle was used by [Nombre 001]: \"The use and enjoyment of the vehicle license plate [Valor 031] by ([Nombre 001]) is more than accredited; for example, on December 3, 2018, at around 8:46 p.m., he was approached by Public Force officers while driving said vehicle, in sequence 0255028, talking with [Nombre 312] from intercepted telephone [Valor 097], at 8:46 p.m. on December 3, 2018 '…[Nombre 001] said – the GAO the police, I'm alone in my car they're on motorcycles behind me…'. Likewise, in the excerpt '…[Nombre 001] said – no I'm alone in my car, they already searched the whole car…', he similarly reiterates the scenario where he confirms he is escorted in the vehicle he owns '…[Nombre 001] said – no no I'm driving my car, they already checked my license and one cop who checked me said everything's thirty-three but I don't know you know they're probably going to screw me over and stuff…', '…[Nombre 001] said – it's just that look I'm talking because I'm in my car…' and finally the excerpt where he indicates, '…I'm driving my car surely pure foolishness as always jeez I haven't done anything…' a situation that confirms he was driving a vehicle he owns, heading to a nearby police station. The foregoing is recorded in O.I.J. reports that have already been amply analyzed, but furthermore the actions of the Public Force were recorded in the Logbook (Libro de Novedades) of the Tibás Police Station, on folio 125, dated December 3, 2018, in numbered lines 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 27, 28 and 29, where the police officers note the events and situations of interest requiring their intervention, and the collaboration of other police forces, regarding the incident that occurred at 9:00 p.m.; for the foregoing, the detained vehicle was identified, which corresponds to a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX-L, year 2018, brown color, which is registered before the National Registry of Property, in the name of [Nombre 019], identity card [Valor 007], alias \"[Nombre 240]\". (see report 25-SLC-CI-20). Subsequently in April 2019, in call sequence 0002957 it is noted that: '…[Nombre 083] said – no no, the Fortuner, subject said – no man, I'm already out of that- [Nombre 083] said – yes dammit he said he sent you dammit, not the Prado but the Fortuner, that he says that he told him I don't know what, that then, well I don't know what the deal is but he says he sent you, subject said – no dammit the one that is in my name is the other one……subject said – no dammit the one I've always gone to pay for and was involved in everything with was the one I gave you the papers for…'. Note how [Nombre 029] reveals the use and enjoyment of vehicles such as Prado and Fortunner by [Nombre 001] which are not in his name\" (cf. pp. 848 to 849 of the judgment). As another relevant aspect, the trial court's decision also considered that after the raids and arrests were executed in this case, while [Nombre 019] was deprived of liberty, the transfer of the motor vehicle to a third party was carried out, which constitutes an additional indication of the intent of the investigated parties to divert the organization's assets. For these purposes, the trial court (a quo) took into consideration the statement of the Judicial Investigation Organization officers and report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 dated April 22, 2022, according to which: \"5.1.5. [Nombre 030], alias \"[Nombre 241]\", fully identified in report 25-SLC-CI-20, during the study period is not registered as an 'Employee' or 'Employer' with the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social). 5.1.5.1 Tax Information. [Nombre 030] is registered with the Ministry of Finance in the economic activity of 'MARKETING AND SALES ADVISORS', reports his Net Income for the periods 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 the sum of SEVENTEEN MILLION SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND THIRTY-EIGHT COLONES (₵17,666,038.00), as detailed below in Table No.7: ..[…]..It should be noted that a query was made on the public website of the College of Economic Sciences Professionals to verify that [Nombre 030] is incorporated in that institution, as a Marketing professional, however, no positive results were found, a situation that contradicts the justification presented before the tax authorities, where he indicates that his income comes from his activity as a specialist in the area of Marketing and Sales\" (cf. p. 842 of the judgment). In addition to the foregoing, during the investigation period the judicial police were able to determine that the motor vehicle acquired by ([Nombre 019]), through the intermediation of [Nombre 030], was used by [Nombre 001]. Furthermore, similar movements were detected, which could not be included within the proven facts because they were outside the investigation periods, but which contribute to [Nombre 030]'s modus operandi of using third parties for the acquisition of assets, with illicit capital. Based on the entire account provided, this Chamber concludes that, indeed, the only possible conclusion to derive is that [Nombre 030] formed part of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001], mainly dedicated to drug trafficking, an activity with which a significant flow of money was generated that was later used for the acquisition of high-value assets. Within the criminal dynamic, [Nombre 030] had an active role in various roles, but of interest to respond to the complaints, the role of recruiting third parties to lend their names for the registration of personal property intended for the use and enjoyment of the organization stands out, thereby managing to dilute the trace of the illicit origin of the money. It is not true, as the appellants state, that what exists is a mere suspicion, because the criminal activity was reliably verified based on all the indications described above, which, analyzed jointly and in concatenation, effectively lead to deriving the criminal participation of [Nombre 030] in the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) that was attributed to him in the accusation. In that sense, it was held as proven that [Nombre 029] carried out deliveries of drugs to other criminal organizations and that, for each kilogram of cocaine delivered, which in coded language was called \"baby\", a consideration of approximately ₡ 5,100,000 was obtained, which constitutes the source of the illicit capital. Regarding the expert report provided by the defense, the trial court (a quo) discounted its value, considering that the study was biased and incomplete, because it only adjusted to what the party wanted it to indicate, but without true evidentiary support: \"However, despite the fact that the court has been certain regarding the criminal commission by the accused [Nombre 030] in the crimes credited to him, we will refer to the evidence provided by his technical defense, corresponding to an accounting expert report, prepared by Mr.\n\n...in that expert report, the public accountant informed, which consisted of examining the accused's income and its origin, in addition to contradicting what was reported by the experts of the Section for the Legitimization of Capital (Sección de Legitimación de Capitales) number 25-SLC-CI-20 and its amplifications, as well as the expert opinion DC:202000745-ING. In that line of analysis, what the court observes are some inconsistencies that, beyond what was attempted to be indicated in said expert report, are contradicted by what was reported by the experts and investigators of the Section for the Legitimization of Capitales; the first thing is that the party-appointed expert gives a report based on what the interested party provides him, so the conclusions he reaches will be in accordance with that, hence the court is already surprised that, if the expert, knowing the professional standards governing the field of public accounting in Costa Rica, including circular N.° 32-2022: “International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000”, and circular N.° 16 on the issuance of a certification report 2016-22-R, published by the Colegio de Contadores Públicos de Costa Rica, allows himself to issue subjective considerations regarding the contribution made by the Section for the Legitimization of Capitales with its experts, because his job is not to question whether the police consider that the economic activities of [Name 030] are or are not a front to account for his income from the criminal activity associated with [Name 001], that is to say, it is not for him to indicate whether the income is illicit or not, since what was indicated is based on the findings of the analysis of the entirety of the evidence, with the scopes that that same audit allowed them to conclude in the manner referred to in report 25-SLC-CI-20 and its amplifications; hence the objectivity of the accountant's analysis will be limited to accounting for the documents provided by his client, since it would be the same to make an assessment of that expert report when we ask ourselves if that rental activity reported by the accused corresponds to the veracity of his business activity as a merchant, as the accused [Name 030] came to report in the debate when stating: “by profession a merchant, security operations manager with an income of 2,260,000 colones per month”; the court from the outset wonders why the contributed expert report does not coincide with what was referred to by the accused, and even more so, it does not develop in it regarding the activity carried out by the accused, which includes being the operations manager of a security company, but which in the accounting report is said to be a Marketing and Sales Advisor, and that he does it independently, but as indicated, the accused stated he was the manager of a security company, which the court corroborated that according to the evidence provided by Mrs. [Name 033], indeed there are a large number of invoices for professional services income of the accused associated with the activity of the company “Emsevipri empresa de seguridad y vigilancia privada sociedad anónima”, (visible on folio 842 of the Evidence File Volume II), hence it is extremely surprising how it could indeed be said that the activity with net income does justify expenses and income, but the documentation justifying the same has not been contributed to the case file, we refer to a list of suppliers, payrolls, CCSS reports, not just invoicing, because precisely that is what constitutes contributions to the legitimization of capital, in which an attempt is made to justify income but which ultimately do not constitute a true robust income declaration capable of providing the respective legitimacy to the commercial activities, such as the inconsistency that the report says that the gross income reported to the Ministerio de Hacienda in the period from 2018 to 2020 totals 169,661,197.00 colones and 9,000,000.00 colones from the fiscal period of 2019 and the accused states that he is a salaried employee as we will see with the same evidence provided by him; therefore, the contributed expert report in no way constitutes a comprehensive analysis of the evidence reproduced in the debate, which ultimately the defense was unable to dismantle, since indeed the party-appointed expert report supports the petitioner's claim, it analyzes documents that should not enter to debate those contributed by the judicial authority, because from an objective point of view its contribution loses quality” [sic] (cf. pp. 854 to 856 of the judgment). As the trial court rightly points out, the study conducted presents inconsistencies with the evidence gathered by the judicial police. Note that the authorities carried out a background study of [Name 030] in government institutions in order to establish whether he had legitimate remunerative activities, obtaining data that are not consistent with his real economic profile. The private expert report, as the trial court aptly stated, was limited to a specific object intended by the defense, which was to justify the existence of a legitimate economic activity of the accused; however, in light of the prosecution's evidence and its forcefulness, it is clear that it is insufficient to establish a reasonable doubt and even contradictory to the evidence collected by the judicial police from various state institutions, hence this Chamber derives no error in the assessment made by the a quo. In the trial, the defense counsel presented as their theory of the case that the money used for the acquisition of the motor vehicle came from a family security business and a transportation business that he maintained together with his wife. That hypothesis was rejected by the trial court, without any deficiency being noted in the analysis. It is important to point out, as a first aspect, that the trial court held as true that the defendant had a legitimate remunerative activity, because on this angle evidence was indeed gathered. What was not accepted is that this was the source of the money with which the motor vehicle was acquired, because all the evidence gathered points to its illicit origin, insofar as [Name 030] was an active member of the criminal organization, who had constant and direct contact with its leader [Name 001], to whom he provided security and protection services; he was also linked to [Name 029], who on behalf of the criminal group made drug deliveries to other organizations and received the corresponding payments, which he later converted into foreign currency through third parties; moreover, for the acquisition of the motor vehicle he sought the help of a third party, who was employed by the organization as a front person (testaferro); in addition to the fact that the economic profile of [Name 030] was not consistent with the movements observed during the investigation period, because although the judgment only deemed his intervention in the acquisition of the vehicle with license plate [Value 031] as proven, it was not the only one he was linked to. The private expert report attempted to support the accused's income with a legitimate activity for which scarce data was provided to reliably justify it, which is why it was given less credibility, without any irregularity being determined in the analysis. The trial court even went further and also considered evidence related to the economic profile of [Name 033], wife of [Name 030], who appeared as a defendant in this case, but was acquitted because the charges against her were not correctly filed: “to exemplify the aforementioned, the accountant stated: ‘It should be noted that the study presents an inconsistency given that the vehicle with license plate [Value 128], a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX, for a value of ₡22,730,000.00 is attributed to Mr. [Name 030], and his partner, Mrs. [Name 033] holder of identity card number [Value 013], if it is to be taken as Family assets, the income of Mrs. [Name 033], for a total amount of $148,698,210.00, should have been included within the study’; but what is held in the investigation regarding this motor vehicle, specifically in the defense's expert report the vehicle with license plate [Value 128], a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX is mentioned, however, from the comprehensive findings of the evidence, it is clearly established that for the purchase of that vehicle, apart from the cash contribution, another vehicle was given as a form of payment, being the BMW brand with license plate [Value 129]; the Section for the Legitimization of Capitales reports in its Report N° 25-SLC-CI-20 C INV 63-19 regarding the Toyota Prado: “it was acquired at twelve hours and ten minutes on the seventeenth of May of two thousand nineteen, as recorded in the digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 199] where one of the deeds that individualize the sale of the asset, [Name 242], holder of identity card number [Value 130], appeared in his capacity as generalísimo proxy, limited to the sum of fifty million colones, and with sufficient powers for this act, of the company called PURDY MOTOR S.A., with legal identification number [Value 200], and on the other hand, Mrs. [Name 033], holder of identity card number [Value 151], a nurse, where in said deed she acquires the lien-free Toyota vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado TX style, black color, chassis JTEBH9FJ5KK207511, for the sum received of thirty-eight million two hundred forty-five thousand ninety colones, the new unregistered vehicle. Payments made by bank deposit from Banco Davivienda, made on the eighth of May of two thousand nineteen, for an amount of six thousand dollars, cash payment for an amount of nine thousand dollars, bank financing from CARROFACIL DE COSTA RICA for an amount of twenty-seven thousand dollars, funds that originate from (Savings, Loan, delivery of previous vehicle).\n\nIn view of the clear information, where it was observed that the deed through which the vehicle with license plate [Valor 128] was acquired was signed on May 17, 2019, and together with the information from sequence **03312922**, where [Nombre 030] alias “[Nombre 241]” states in the excerpts **“…[Nombre 241] said – deliver it, I mean sell it to hand over that cash, it’s going to be more of a hassle and that’s it, it’s set for tomorrow at one, even that, you asshole…”** **“but we’re set for tomorrow, you asshole”** referring to the fact that the business of acquiring the vehicle would be made effective the day after the phone call, dated May 16, 2019, an event that fits perfectly with the acquisition of the vehicle Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX, year 2019, license plate [Valor 128], acquired on May 17, 2019 (1 day after the call). In the same vein, excerpts are also observed in the aforementioned sequence, numbered **03312922**, where alias “[Nombre 241]” reflects the knowledge he has regarding money laundering or Legitimación de Capitales, evidencing the experience acquired and what is established by the controls that financial institutions have, when depositing cash and the justifications they request for the origin of the money, shown in the following excerpts acquired through the tool of telephone intervention **“…[Nombre 241] said – say it’s no because, imagine, for me to hand over that dough, besides that car is not in my name, it’s going to be more of a hassle…”** or also in the excerpt where he mentions **“…[Nombre 241] said – no, but understand, so that you understand me, the car is not in my name so when I grab that cash, imagine, for me to deposit that cash, from now until tomorrow I can’t, I’ll never be able to, you understand me?, subject said – haa it’s because it’s not in your name, [Nombre 241] said – no, so for me to deposit that cash at Toyota they’re going to ask me, well imagine, it’s going to be a hassle, in the sense that, well, where did I get it and that stuff, so I sold a car but the car is not in my name…”** and finally in the excerpt **“…[Nombre 241] said – right now I’m actually better off delivering the car because any issue, well, you’re delivering a car, nothing happens there, it’s not the same as depositing the cash all at once, subject said – mmm yeah yeah yeah yeah, [Nombre 241] said – if it had been earlier yes, because it gives me a chance to deposit the cash in chunks, but we’re set for tomorrow, you asshole, just like everything, when you’re going to do something someone always shows up…”**; the aforementioned finding establishes that, indeed, for that vehicle the accused [Nombre 030] contributed the BMW motor vehicle, plate [Valor 131], as a form of payment, but the absolutely clear relationship is that it would give him away if he had to give its nominal value in cash, because he knows that it is a way in which they would give him traceability (since the dealership has the duty to report the suspicious transaction report), known as “STR” (“ROS”), and that indeed the motor vehicle was put in his wife’s name, but then we see that in the years 2018 and 2019 [Nombre 030] made the respective payment of the road tax (marchamo) for that BMW vehicle, from which it is unfailingly determined that he had acquired it from another person who was collaborating with him and that this was [Nombre 243], who acquired the vehicle in his name, with the judicial police highlighting that in the period during which he was the legal owner (48 calendar days) and the purchase value (USD $65,000) against the sale (₡ 17,640,000), this does not correspond to commercial logic, so then, indeed, it is a clear way of establishing that the acquired assets had an irregular form of payment typical of capitalization actions (acciones de la legitimación de capitales), thus the concealment of the rights to the asset occurred, diverting attention and distracting the authorities from the true person who provided the money for the purchase, thereby causing a distortion of the socioeconomic order, because control over the assets that people hold is lost, although it must be clarified that everything referred to in relation to the vehicle [Valor 132] was not charged (because the prosecutorial body so decided), but the court has the duty to analyze what is stated in the accounting report; therefore, the court cannot give forcefulness to the expert opinion of the indicated accountant, because it is clearly established that there was partiality or subjective analysis, since the accountant only tried to give an appearance of family assets (patrimonio familiar) to that vehicle, but despite having the referred report, he limited himself to making an inaccurate conclusion; in that same line of argument, the experts from the Sección de Legitimación de Capitales were forceful in indicating that [Nombre 030] was a person dedicated to legitimación de capitales as referred to above in this same section of its reasoning, we can even see that the technical defense presented evidence at trial on October 3, 2024, when the lawyer Lic. Simón Angulo offered as evidence a precautionary measures hearing, which was located by the court, which is an electricity bill and an employment letter, to accredit his ties to the community at that time, of importance is that it refers to his work, specifically to a certificate issued by [Nombre 247], which certifies that the accused [Nombre 030] works for the security company ENSEVIPRI S.A., regarding which it is important to establish the following, said company and its representative have been named in the debate, both by documentary evidence and even by the leader of the criminal structure [Nombre 001], the first thing is that the representative is the brother-in-law of the defendant [Nombre 030], but also as we have been referring to in police report IP-094-EN20, it was established through surveillance, that they observed on different occasions the vehicles Toyota Land Cruiser Prado, license plate [Valor 128], Toyota Land Cruiser Prado, license plate [Valor 070] (the same one that [Nombre 010] was driving when he transported [Nombre 001] to CAI Vilma Curlin Rivera; with that last vehicle being found at the home of [Nombre 001] on the day of the raids, in use and at the disposal of the criminal organization, and the experts from the Sección de Legitimación de Capitales in their report No. 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21, refer that the owner is a corporation (sociedad anónima) named Vanguard Cleaning RC Sociedad Anónima, legal ID [Valor 201], the legal representation is held by [Nombre 246], this being the wife of Mr. [Nombre 247], who offers that employment certification from the company “Emsevipri empresa de seguridad y vigilancia privada sociedad anónima”, and if one observes, in the board of directors appointments of that company, Mrs. [Nombre 246] appears as treasurer, the same person who holds the legal representation of the company that owns the vehicle [Valor 152], which was found in the house of the accused [Nombre 001], leader of the criminal organization, coupled with the fact that what was stated by the accused [Nombre 248] is not consistent with that letter or employment certification, because it says that: “he works for our company providing supervision and sales coordination services for our represented company, capturing new clients since December 5, 2013”, however, the defendant said he was the security operations manager; so for the court, the comprehensive analysis of the evidence allows it to forcefully infer that the actions and businesses of the accused [Nombre 030] are arranged to be part of the criminal structure of [Nombre 001] and that the expert findings are decisive and have not been contradicted by the accounting report and the evidence provided by the defense» [sic] (cf. pp. 856 to 860 of the judgment). From the previous excerpt it is obtained that even the trial court derived from the evidence the acquisition of another vehicle in which the wife of [Nombre 030] intervened and the asset ended up in the use of members of the criminal organization, which again allows reaffirming the modus operandi for the acquisition of assets and concealment of their trail. In the opinion of this Chamber, as already indicated, the prosecution's evidence was sufficiently clear and conclusive to derive the criminal responsibility of the defendant [Nombre 030] in the acts for which he was charged, hence the defense evidence was insufficient to refute that conclusion. It is recalled here that a significant number of telephone communications were considered in which the accused [Nombre 030] negotiated motor vehicles, both heavy and light, therefore the acquisition of the Toyota vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Valor 031], was not the only event of that nature that was verified during the investigation period. Even in the communication at 13:08 hours on May 16, 2019, with sequence number 03312922, [Nombre 030] spoke with a third party about the acquisition of a vehicle and the difficulties presented by the fact that the asset that would be part of the payment was not in his name and therefore he could not justify the funds, which confirms the recurrence of actions of that nature and which was assessed in that same sense in the judgment. Although as part of the payment for the movable property (bien mueble), the Volkswagen vehicle, plate [Valor 114], was delivered, this circumstance is in no way sufficient to falsify the conclusion reached by the a quo regarding the illicit origin of the assets. For, as already indicated, these types of actions were part of the defendant's modus operandi to achieve the mobilization of illicit capital. Furthermore, even if the partial payment of the vehicle through the receipt of the Volkswagen motor vehicle were set aside, the rest of the capital paid finds no justification in a lawful source of [Nombre 030], nor of ([Nombre 019]); rather, based on the circumstantial evidence and the behavior of the defendant, it can be directly related to the illicit activity.\n\nIt is recalled once again that the motor vehicle was used by [Name 001], regarding whom [Name 030] displayed an attitude of servility and submission, which is consistent with the reconstruction of events carried out, in which he was placed as the leader of the narco gang and [Name 030] as one of its subordinate subjects. As already stated, [Name 030]'s actions under the orders of [Name 001] are evident in the negotiation for the armored windshield transcribed above, in which [Name 030] tells his interlocutor that he must consult with \"el mae\" on the terms of the agreement. It is clear that, in a criminal organization with a certain level of complexity, such as this one, the leader assigns general functions or terms of action to his subordinates, so it is impossible to require—as the appellants do—the evidentiary support of the corresponding order for each of the movements and transactions carried out by the members of the organization—and specifically [Name 030]—under the general mandate assigned to them. In this matter, it has been established at an evidentiary level that [Name 030] followed the orders of [Name 001] for the insertion of profits illegally obtained through drug trafficking into the formal economy, using for this, among other mechanisms, the purchase of luxury vehicles. Based on all the foregoing, it is therefore determined that, contrary to what was alleged by the appellants, the objective and subjective elements of the criminal type of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) do emerge from the trial court's judgment. The defendant [Name 030] carried out actions directed at the acquisition of the vehicle, as he was the one who reserved it at the dealership and made the initial payment; later, in order to hide the trail of the money with which it was obtained, he enlisted the help of a third party for its registration in the Public Registry. Furthermore, his knowledge of the illicit origin of the money is undeniable, as he was an active member of the criminal organization, performing specific functions within it, including the recruitment of frontmen (testaferros), precisely to be able to dilute any trace of the illicit origin of the money with which they were acquired. In fact, as already indicated, the trial court considered it feasible to also attribute criminal liability to him for the crime of drug trafficking, which constitutes the predicate offense to the activity of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), a conviction that was not upheld due to an issue of imputation, not evidence. In this regard, this Chamber reiterates the ruling No. 2005-499 of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, issued at 10:47 hours on June 2, 2005, which stated: \"*In the case of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), the objective element is the disposition of economic resources, with the aim of hiding their origin, and its subjective part requires knowledge that the economic values come from drug trafficking activity. Consequently, what the legislator did was convert money laundering (legitimación de capitales), which in some cases could be a form of secondary participation, into an independent criminal type from drug trafficking itself*,\" aspects that derive from the circumstantial evidence presented as has been extensively explained throughout this pronouncement. Based on the circumstances set forth, this Tribunal considers that the complaints of the defense do not concur and that, for this reason, upon verifying no defect in the intellectual reasoning of the judgment, as it pertains to the criminal liability of [Name 030] in the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), what is appropriate is the declaration **without merit** (*sin lugar*) of the claims filed by the technical and material defense.\n\n**XXV. Sixth objection raised by Dr. Badilla Villanueva in favor of [Name 030].** Claims \"** *Lack of reasoning for the sentence in terms of articles 71 of the Penal Code, 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code* **.\" Attorney Badilla Villanueva argues that a sentence of 15 years in prison was imposed on his client for each of the offenses, due to \"*the excesses in the commission of the crime*\" (cf. f. 7281), a criterion that seems to be based – for drug trafficking – on the visits of third parties attributed to having the purpose of carrying out logistics tasks, while in the case of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), it would find support in \"*being the leader's trusted man, being part of a criminal structure of 13 people, evidencing that he did not receive orders, holding meetings at his house, and affecting the socioeconomic order*\" (f. 7281). He argues that the objective and subjective elements of the punishable act were not analyzed, nor the condition of the accused's clean record, nor the goal of positive special prevention assigned to the penalty in our legal system. He explains that, regarding the commercialization of drugs, [Name 030] was only charged with one drug transport, in which it was not even possible to determine what type of substance it was, and regarding money laundering (legitimación de capitales), he alleges that the accused did not end up paying the entire price and also did not register it in his name, so his participation in the purchase of the automobile is only residual. In view of the above, he believes there is grievance by virtue of the sanctions being irrational, as it is feasible to set the minimum end of the sentence. He requests that the ground be accepted and that a remand be ordered for a new substantiation. **Fourth ground of the appeal against judgment filed by co-defendant [Name 030].** Refers to \"** *Non-observance of articles 71 of the Penal Code and 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for setting sanctions much higher than the minimum ends, through reasoning far removed from what is established in the procedural norms* **.\" The accused argues that the imposition of 15 years in prison for each of the offenses in material concurrence for which he was convicted —drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales)— was erroneously reasoned. After partially transcribing the reasons indicated in the seventh section of the judgment under appeal (cf. fs. 7397-7398), he explains that the amount imposed is based on the same reasons alleged to support his participation in the illicit act of drug trafficking; in particular, he is sanctioned for being considered to have assumed the role of \"sub-leader\" of the criminal grouping, because it was not proven that he \"received orders from any leader of any organization\" (cf. f. 7398). He points out that, on the contrary, said argument should have been used in his favor, to demonstrate that he had no links with any member of the alleged organization. Another of the reasons used to increase the sentence consists of affirming that he used his home for criminal meetings, despite the fact that he only received visits from friends and acquaintances and that \"*there is not a single piece of evidence in the file that showed the conversations or topics discussed with my visitors in my home*\" (f. 7398). The appellant also considers it invalid that he be sanctioned more severely for having explored, as a business possibility, the importation of armor-plated windshields from Guatemala. He indicates that his age and family ties, which should have been weighed in his favor as positive aspects, are rather reproached, by affirming that they did not serve as a deterrent to prevent him from committing the crime. He further states that the reasoning for the penalty for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is a reiteration of the same reasons used to set against him 15 years in prison for the crime of drug trafficking, without there being \"*an individual analysis of each conduct based on its specific modal circumstances*\" (f. 7399). After transcribing the argumentation under which the penalty for the illicit act of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) was justified (cf. fs. 7399-7401), the material defense insists on the non-existence of efforts to adjust the *quantum* of the penalty to the parameters established in Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He alleges that the 30 years of prison imposed practically amount to a life sentence, having been established for a person who is 43 years old, with a family and children, as he is. He points out, as a grievance, that the 30 years of prison imposed are disproportionate and stray from the re-socializing goal of the penalty and the guidelines provided for in Article 71 of the Penal Code. He requests that the objection be declared with merit and that a remand be ordered for a new discussion of the *quantum* of the penalty. **By majority, the claim is declared with merit.** By virtue of the revocation of the conviction imposed for the crime of drug trafficking, reference will only be made to the penalty imposed for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). As has been indicated in other sections of this pronouncement, the imposition of a penalty, especially those that deviate from the minimum end, requires rigorous, complete, and rational reasoning from the judging person. The foregoing so that the *ius puniendi* is exercised within limits of rationality and proportionality, allowing the sanctioned person, as well as the citizenry, to understand what the specific reproach is for the act committed. In this case, it is verified that the sanction imposed on the defendant for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) amounts to 15 years of imprisonment, that is, 5 years above the minimum end that could be imposed in accordance with numeral 69 of Law No. 8204, as it is a crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) from drug trafficking. However, it is observed that a large part of the grounds presented to justify the sanction allude to actions carried out by [Name 033], wife of the defendant, who, it is worth highlighting, was acquitted in the present summary proceedings. Criminal liability is strictly personal and in that sense, based on the fact that the penalty must be imposed based on the degree of reproach made to the accused person for their own acts, it would not be possible to demand from them or attribute to them actions carried out by a third party, unless they had somehow instrumentalized that person for an illicit purpose. In this case, that is not the circumstance expressed regarding Mrs. [Name 033], but rather the knowledge she had of the criminal activities of [Name 030] and that she received people who were part of the criminal organization at her home. These arguments give the impression that, not being able to sanction said defendant, her reproach is transferred to her husband, which cannot be accepted. Having removed these reasonings from the reasoning, this Chamber notes that the remaining outlined arguments are not sufficient to support a reproach as severe as the one that was finally made. The judgment focused on objective aspects related to the manner of commission of the crime, without adequately assessing the remaining topics contemplated in Article 71 of the Penal Code. It is even noted that the personal conditions of the accused were barely mentioned, without explaining in a clear and specific way the impact these had on the dosage of the sanction. By virtue of the foregoing, by majority, it is concluded that the reasoning for the penalty imposed on [Name 029] for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) does not satisfy the requirements of Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in relation to Article 71 of the Penal Code. Consequently, by majority, the claim is declared **with merit** (*con lugar*) and the sanction imposed for said offense is revoked. A remand trial is ordered, so that the trial court, with a different panel, proceeds to substantiate said matter again, with observance of the principle of non-reformation in pejus. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With accentuated respect, I separate myself from the decision of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare without merit the sixth ground of the appeal of the private defense of the defendant [Name 030], as well as the fourth ground of the appeal filed by the defendant in exercise of his material defense. Contrary to what the appellants affirm, whose main arguments were accepted by the majority vote, I consider that the judgment did adequately state the reasons for the sentence of fifteen years in prison, for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) committed by [Name 030].\n\nIn the eighth whereas clause, letter B of the decision, the *a quo* highlights that the conduct of [Name 030] exceeded the minimum legal reproach, for which it indicates that he was a person of great trust for the leader of the drug-trafficking organization, which it validly deduces from the following details: *a)* it was not frequent for him to receive orders, but rather he had a wide margin of action, *b)* many of the meetings of the narco network took place in his home and, *c)* he was in charge of the management for the purchase of a costly vehicle for the use and enjoyment of the gang leader. In my view, the tribunal's arguments certainly account for a higher degree of culpability, since the actions of [Name 030] denote that he had access to a large amount of money from drug trafficking, which is illustrated precisely by the purchase of the motor vehicle worth over forty million colones. In addition, his closeness to the leader, as well as the meetings held at his house, are certainly factors that place him in a very close and trusted position that, necessarily, must be reflected in the amount of the sanction for his conduct as a money launderer of capital from drug trafficking. The judgment also justifies the increase of five years above the legal minimum, based on the advisory services that [Name 030] provided to the ringleader of the narco structure, precisely regarding the handling of the money. These are conducts that present [Name 030] as a person who, regarding the legal interest – the economy in general and the socio-economic order in particular –, represented a more significant impact, since he had closeness and a very close bond of trust with the narco gang leader and, as indicated, he advised him and had access to a lot of money to proceed to \"launder\" it. Therefore, in my view, the increase in the sanction decided by the trial body was fair, proportional, and in accordance with the analysis of the particularities of the conduct of the convicted person [Name 030]. Therefore, my vote is to declare the sixth ground of appeal by [Name 030]'s private defense without merit, as well as the fourth ground of the appeal filed by the defendant in exercise of his material defense.-\n\n**XXVI. Third ground of appeal managed by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense.** Claims \"Disagreement with the obtaining of the evidence and the incorporation of what was obtained in the raid carried out against me for coming from an unfounded and therefore illegal judicial resolution.\" He states that the raid order issued in a resolution at 1:00 p.m. on October 5, 2020, considered only ambiguous indications that fail to comply with the parameters set by the Third Chamber in resolution No. 1408-2004, regarding the assessment of indiciary evidence. He indicates that those indications are not indicative of any crime, that no other investigative steps existed, and, therefore, the justification for raiding his home was based on two telephone calls, captured from third parties and in which it is unknown to what object they referred. He considers that the raid order for a money laundering crime was disproportionate and violated rational sound criticism, because it is unknown how the payment for the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado vehicle was made and in what way the colones were converted into dollars or if the acquisition was legitimate. He believes that in his case there was no proven indication of his participation in a criminal activity that would justify carrying out a raid on his home. Regarding the grievance, he explains that there was an arbitrary interference in his life, by carrying out a raid without meeting the legal and constitutional requirements necessary for that purpose. He requests that the ground be upheld, that the raid order be annulled and with it all the derived evidence; furthermore, that he be acquitted of the crime of drug trafficking. **The ground is declared without merit.** As indicated in whereas clause VIII of this pronouncement, which deals with analyzing the appropriateness and intellectual evidentiary support of the telephone interventions, the requirement for indications that prove criminal activity varies according to the phase in which the criminal process finds itself. The degree of evidentiary sufficiency necessary to issue a condemnatory judgment cannot be equated with that required to authorize an investigative act during the preparatory stage. In this initial phase, certainty about the criminal responsibility of the investigated person is not required, as this would render the authorization of steps that involve impacts on fundamental rights unnecessary and disproportionate. The foregoing is because the principle of proportionality requires that any interference with fundamental rights must be authorized only when no other less harmful means exist to achieve the procedural goal being pursued. Thus, when the guarantees judge is requested to order an investigative act that affects fundamental rights —such as the interception of communications or the raid of a dwelling— there must be reasonable evidentiary elements about the investigated person's participation in the criminal activity, consistent with the phase in which the process is found. Otherwise, if an evidential collection so high and robust is required that it demonstrates, without a doubt, the existence of an illicit activity, the preparatory stage would be distorted, as its purpose is precisely to collect evidence that allows clarifying the investigated fact, whether to confirm or rule it out. A disproportionate requirement would only lead to certain essential steps not being possible, to the detriment of criminal prosecution, without its counterpart being greater protection of the fundamental rights of the accused persons, but rather the impunity of those who decide to violate criminal regulations. In the case at hand, the defendant [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, questions the basis of the raid, registration, and seizure order that authorized entry to his home, because —in his view— there were not sufficient elements of evidence to justify the intrusion by the State. Having analyzed the questioned resolution, which corresponds to the one issued by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José at 1:00 p.m. on October 5, 2020 (cf. pp. 2108 to 2146), this Chamber considers that it has adequate reasoning and elements of evidence to support, with the sufficiency required for that procedural stage and the type of investigative step to be carried out, the existence of criminal activities by the investigated persons and, in particular, by the defendant [Name 019]. The judging person who issued the order took as a basis the statement of facts made by the Public Ministry, in which a criminal organization was described that, between April 2018 and October 2020, engaged in drug trafficking and the money laundering of capital proceeds from said activity. The role of each of the members of the criminal structure was described, as well as various transfer activities conducted with third parties. Subsequently, the resolution analyzes the pertinence of the requested measure, by determining that there must necessarily be sufficient indications of criminal activity and that the intended purpose cannot be achieved by other means, concluding that the investigation conducted and the information provided in the request were sufficient to deem both requirements fulfilled. It reviews the indications obtained for each of the accused persons and, in particular, with respect to [Name 019], it pointed out that the vehicle with license plate [Value 125] was in his name, despite its effective use by [Name 001], as verified from the intervention carried out by the GAO on December 3, 2018, when said subject was detained while driving the motor vehicle. Likewise, it added the existence of captured telephone communications, such as 0232185, 0326308, 0306135, 0317672, and 0159716, in which it was confirmed that [Name 001] was the one in charge of the use and enjoyment of the asset. It was considered that [Name 019] did not report a lawful economic activity that would justify the acquisition of the vehicle, whose value exceeded 40 million colones. The resolution describes that, as a result of the interception of communications, a link was determined between the defendant [Name 050] and a subject who answered to the alias \"[Name 240]\", preliminarily assigned to the indictee [Name 019] who, according to the prosecutorial theory, would be one of those in charge of carrying out drug sales to third parties, which was derived from sequences 0155185 and 0159716. Then, in a section dedicated exclusively to ([Name 019]), the resolution details the following recount of roles and indications: \"*A. Assistance with the storage, custody, and delivery of illicit substances. Among the calls that would prove said role are the following: 0208919 in which a subject named [Name 249] asks [Name 046] for 'two' and he tells him to go pick them up at '[Name 240]'s', the nickname by which [Name 019] is known. The reason why it is estimated that this communication very probably refers to the sale of narcotics is found in the section corresponding to [Name 046]. 0159716 in which the same pattern as the previous call is observed, but in which [Name 050] is the one who tells an unidentified subject to go to '[Name 240]'s' to take what he was going to pick up. As already indicated, it is known that ([Name 016]) is not a formal merchant, nor does he engage in any type of activity under which the pickup of a lawful product or merchandise is justified. Likewise, in call 0111004 ([Name 007]) again refers another subject to '[Name 240]'s' to pick up 'the thing'.*\"\n\n- 0029338 in which [Name 161] is shown concerned about a search and seizure operation being carried out by the Judicial Investigation Agency on one of the walkways of León XIII and in which [Name 161] calls a subject to find out if something is happening where \"[Name 240]\" is, and that other subject tells him that \"everything looks calm\" there. Evidently, if [Name 161] calls to ask about that house, it is because within it, evidence that compromises the criminal organization could be found. Likewise, there are communications linking [Name 019] with several of the persons who have been investigated in this case, such as, for example: 0313114 in which a woman calls [Name 010] and asks him where he is because they went looking for him at several places, including the home of «[Name 240]» and did not find him. It also stands out that another of the places searched was the house of \"[Name 136]\", alias by which the group's leader [Name 001] is known. 0317672 in which [Name 010] says he must go do something with \"[Name 240]\". Note that in that same communication [Name 010] states that \"[Name 136]\" invited them to eat at McDonald’s and that at the site ([Name 013]) was also present, who also asked him to watch over \"el fierro\" for him. - 0317672 in which [Name 161] calls a woman to tell her that several homes in León XIII were searched, including the house of \"[Name 240]\". - 0210711 in which an unidentified subject calls [Name 046] and asks him if he has a \"bicha\" of those to weigh \"unas tenis Nike\" that they are going to buy from them, to which [Name 046] suggests he ask “[Name 240]”. It should be noted that there is a high probability that this call refers to the sale of illicit substances, since it is clearly nonsensical to weigh sports shoes» (cfr. f. 2137 front and back of the investigation file). From the foregoing communications, it was possible to reasonably infer that the interlocutors were referring to the trafficking of illicit substances, through the use of coded language. The use of the alias «[Name 251]» is repeated, as one of the persons who were presumably carrying out the trade of those substances with third parties and, as already indicated, at a police level and preliminarily, that alias was linked to the accused [Name 019]. Precisely to corroborate all of this information, the judge who analyzed the prosecutorial request determined that the requirements of relevance, necessity, suitability, and proportionality of the investigative measure were met, in contrast to the required procedural purpose, which was the clarification of the investigated facts through the collection of new evidence. Consequently, the search of 14 properties linked to the investigated persons was ordered, including ([Name 019]), whose domicile was identified as objective number 12, with the following detail: «Dwelling 12 owned by the mother of ([Name 019]) located in [...]. Reason: ([Name 019]) has lent his dwelling for the storage of illicit substances. Regarding this, see calls 0208919, 0159716 and 0029338» (cfr. f. 2141 back of the investigation file). The resolution describes the evidence intended to be collected, the time and date for the execution of the measure, the persons authorized to participate in it, as well as the identification and signature of the judge who issued the ruling. Based on the considerations set forth, this Chamber finds that there is no defect to reproach in the aforementioned ruling. It is not true, as the material defense states, that the order considered only two telephone communications, because the truth is that it referred to several captures that, preliminarily, related him to other members of the criminal group and to the activity of drug trafficking. Regarding the illicit act of money laundering, the reasons why he was linked were also detailed, namely the acquisition of a vehicle of considerable value, despite not reporting any licit activity that would allow him to handle the sums of money necessary to acquire it, coupled with the fact that the vehicle was in use by the person identified as the gang's leader. It was unnecessary to determine how the accused converted the colones into dollars for the purchase of the vehicle, because the relevant fact was that the vehicle appeared in his name at the time of the events, without a licit justification existing. In summary, the body of evidence available was sufficient and suitable for ordering the search of the dwelling of the members of the criminal organization and in particular of ([Name 019]), which is why the complaints submitted for consideration are dismissed. Consequently, the third ground of the appeal filed by the defendant ([Name 019]) is declared without merit. \n\n - First ground of appeal managed by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense. Accuses «Disagreement with the assessment of the evidence regarding the crime of drug trafficking». Considers that the decision of the a quo to convict him based on telephone calls intercepted from third parties was erroneous. States that a telephone intervention was never ordered against him. Indicates that the error of the sentence is that it was not assessed whether the captured calls were sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Transcribes the content of the call captured at 12:38 hours on July 3, 2019, sequence 0208919, user [Value 134], then details that it does not meet the gravity, precision, and concordance required by the Third Chamber in vote no. 14082004. Argues that the evidence is not fully proven, because there is no certainty whether the meeting existed and an object was delivered. Maintains that the lack of corroboration means that only the intention to carry out an action exists, without any penalty being contemplated for such a scenario. Questions that a relationship of subordination of alias «[Name 251]» to [Name 046] was inferred and that what was transacted was a stash of drugs. Points out that as a result of that communication, no drugs were seized and it was not verified that the meeting took place. Asserts that using the call to conclude that he stored drugs implies an «extensive interpretation» of the evidence, in contravention of article 2 of the procedural code. Argues that, according to the sentence, materializations occurred in related cases, such as 19-000023-0622-PE, 19-014179-0042-PE and 19-000160-0622PE, which is useful only for those summary proceedings, but not for the facts charged against him. Asserts that he was sentenced without mentioning the existing evidence against him demonstrating drug trafficking activity, as there were no surveillances, sales to third parties, to collaborators, or other investigation strategies. Criticizes that the conviction was based on a single amphibological piece of evidence. Regarding the grievance, he highlights that he was convicted based on evidence that does not meet legal or constitutional requirements, nor those described by jurisprudence. Requests that the challenge be granted, the sentence annulled, and his release ordered. Fifth ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, in favor of the defendant ([Name 019]). Accuses «Insufficient evidence» regarding the illicit act of drug sales. Considers that the sentence contains no suitable evidence proving the materialization of drug sales by the accused [Name 019]. Notes that a seizure was carried out at his dwelling, but it was not proven that the drugs belonged to the defendant, since they were not found in his room or another dependency allowing attribution of ownership. Adds that the amount seized does not constitute evidence of commercial sale or possession for those purposes. Points out that no drug commercialization by the accused was proven. In the section called «Grievance» describes that the improper application of substantive law led to the imposition of a penalty on his client with the consequent loss of his ambulatory freedom. Requests that his client be acquitted and his release ordered, or failing that, that the sentence be annulled and a retrial ordered. By majority, the grounds are granted. The intellectual reasoning for the crime of drug trafficking attributed to the accused [Name 019], in the modalities of storage and sale, is found between folios 560 and 577 of the sentence, under the title «FACTS AGAINST [Name 046] (DECEASED) AND [Name 019]». However, taking into consideration that the sentence constitutes a logical unit, this Chamber did not limit itself to said section, but analyzed the entirety of the ruling, in order to verify if in other sections reference was made to the participation of the accused in activities related to drug trafficking. After examining the sentence, this Court concludes that the intellectual reasoning is insufficient to support the attribution of criminal liability made against the defendant [Name 019] for the aforementioned illicit act, insofar as the evidentiary analysis was lax and ambiguous. The facts attributed to the defendant and which the court considers constitutive of drug trafficking are the following: «1.- In the period between the months of April of the year 2018 to October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; zones in which they maintained under their control various properties for storage, distribution and sale of drugs, as well as for receipt of money proceeds from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure covered several aspects: • The storage and dosing of the drug stashes acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of stashes to the various commercial sale points.\n\n• The sale of drug shipments belonging to the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory.\n• The sale of drug shipments belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug dependents, through the properties held by the organization for \"Bunker\"-type purposes, as well as on public roads in areas under the organization's control.\n• The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, employing various means to that end.\n3.- This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal fashion, so each of its members performed specific functions, all in a single direction: the sale of drugs and the protection of the group over the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following:\n[...]\n• [Nombre 019]: a member of the criminal group, his hierarchical rank within the group was to provide his collaboration to other high-ranking members of the criminal group, such as the accused [Nombre 046], in the storage and sale of drugs. Furthermore, his functionality as a front man was proven, by facilitating his name for the registration of high-value assets, property of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001].\n[...]\n4.17 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Nombre 001] assigned the accused [Nombre 046], so that during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, he would carry out functions such as the sale and distribution of drugs in the sector of the León XIII housing complex, specifically marijuana, as well as to fulfill a front man role in the registry inscription of vehicles belonging to the narco gang. Likewise, the accused [Nombre 046] delegated the function of possession, storage, and sale of drugs to the accused [Nombre 019], who carried out drug sales to third-party consumers from his residence in the same León XIII housing complex and who also participated in the criminal group as a front man in the inscription of high-value assets.\n4.18 On July 3, 2019, at 12:38 hours, the accused [Nombre 046] made the coordination arrangements through the use of his cell phone for the sale of a drug shipment to a person identified with the alias \"[Nombre 249]\".\n4.19 On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, raid, search, and seizure proceedings were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the defendant [Nombre 019], at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Nombre 019], the following result was obtained:\n- 199.48 grams of flowering tops of the cannabis sativa plant, a drug that ([Nombre 019]) sold to third parties at the property where he resided.\n- An HS-K brand gray and black electronic scale with its respective charger.\n- A total cash amount of ¢359,000.00 (three hundred fifty-nine thousand colones), money generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused ([Nombre 019]) as a direct collaborator of [Nombre 046].\n- Six cell phones with accessories described as follows: a Samsung Duos white cell phone, with IMEI numbers 352550071157109 and 352551071157107 with a Kolbi SIM card numbered 89506010919211755, an LG brand black cell phone with IMEI 357137076226645 with its respective battery and cover with a piece of paper attached with tape with number [Valor 202], a Huawei brand black cell phone, IMEI 863137041709912, with SIM number 8950604201507695102F and micro SD 8 GB, an Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, black, IMEI 355315082004465, a white cell phone, Apple brand, iPhone model, white, with a Movistar SIM card #8950604102001203204, a Samsung brand black cell phone, with external IMEI 354260112884186 and second 354261112884184, a Kingston 32 GB memory card and a Movistar SIM 8950604201002368269f\" (highlighting supplied. Cf. pp. 276 to 288 of the Judgment. Note that the accused [Nombre 019] was attributed the function of being one of the collaborators of the organization tasked with selling drugs to third parties, on the orders of [Nombre 046], who in turn was a direct collaborator of [Nombre 001]. Although the lower court held this function as proven, the truth is that the manner in which it approached and evaluated the evidence does not allow that conclusion to be reached beyond any reasonable doubt. After establishing that [Nombre 019] was part of the criminal organization — with which this Chamber concurs — the judgment states: \"However, specifically regarding the facts that have been demonstrated, it is established that on July 3, 2019, at 12:38 hours, the accused [Nombre 046] made the coordination arrangements through the use of his cell phone for the sale of a drug shipment to a person identified with the alias '[Nombre 249]'. The foregoing is held as proven based on the call detailed below: 'From [Valor 197] (using IMEI 358463090965128). Call identified with sequence number 0208919. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 134]. This call was made at 12:38 hours on July 3, 2019. [Nombre 046] alias \"[Nombre 252]\" received a call from a subject who identified himself with the name [Nombre 249]. [Nombre 252] said – Who is it? To which the subject responded – [Nombre 249]. [Nombre 252] said – Tell me. Subject said – don't you see I need two, they'll pay me on Monday. [Nombre 252] said – Well go ask \"[Nombre 240]\" for them. Subject said – And, and, he needs half the cash in sixty. [Nombre 252] said – Well man, you keep the other half, tell him to give it to you. Subject said – yes, Same same there I sell it too. [Nombre 252] said – Tell him to give you three while I send you the rest. Subject said – Okay okay. The conversation continues with no data of interest. Call ends'\" [sic] (cf. pp. 572 to 573 of the judgment).\nThe first observation that must be made is that fact 4.9, which describes an event that occurred on July 3, 2019, was attributed to [Nombre 046], not to [Nombre 019]. The second aspect observed is that the judgment does not state whether the negotiation that was taking place between [Nombre 046] and a third party came to fruition. The judgment seems to understand that it did and that the drug was delivered by [Nombre 019], but that conclusion is not drawn from the evidence that was considered. From the facts transcribed above, [Nombre 019] is attributed the sale of drugs to third parties by delegation from [Nombre 046].\n\nTo deem those actions proven, the court states: «It is clear that within the context of the organization it can be perfectly inferred that between [Nombre 046] and [Nombre 019] there existed a relationship of superiority respectively; this is reflected in that Mr. [Nombre 001] chose to use a cellular service that was registered in the name of Mr. [Nombre 046], as well as allowing the vehicle Toyota Prado license plate [Valor 135], which was used by Mr. [Nombre 001] for his transport as well as for his custody whenever he had to travel to the El Buen Pastor penal center to visit his romantic partner; from this it is entirely plausible and confirmed that Mr. [Nombre 001] assigned to Mr. [Nombre 046] the distribution and sale of drugs in the sector of Ciudadela León XIII as well as who would fulfill the role of front man (testaferro) regarding the registration of assets in his name. In addition to the foregoing, it can be perfectly derived that Mr. [Nombre 046] in turn delegated to [Nombre 019] the possession and sale of drugs to third parties from his dwelling, as was evidenced in the call just mentioned [the lower court refers to sequence 0208919]. Now then, the task of possession and sale of drugs delegated to [Nombre 019] by [Nombre 046] is evidenced based on the following calls from September 4, September 29, and October 3, all of the year 2019: “From [Valor 099]. Call identified with sequence number 0029338. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 136]. This call was made at 06:01 hours on September 4, 2019. [Nombre 161] alias “[Nombre 083]” spoke with an unidentified subject. [Nombre 083] said – Mae. Subject said – Hello. [Nombre 083] said – That from there you can’t see where they are. Subject said – Hello. [Nombre 083] said – From there you can’t see where they went in. Subject said – Who’s speaking. [Nombre 083] said – [Nombre 225]. Subject said – Operative. [Nombre 083] said – Yes. Subject said – I don’t know, I haven’t seen anything. [Nombre 083] said – You are not at home. Subject said – Yes. [Nombre 083] said – From there you can see the whole patrol car as if they went into the [Nombre 240]’s alameda, take a look. Subject said – Hold on a sec. [Nombre 083] said off-phone – Mae so you can tell them. Subject said – They’re going like towards the back of the alameda, heading inside. [Nombre 083] said – At the very back. Subject said – They’re going like towards there. [Nombre 083] said – They’re going. Subject said – Yes, some from OIJ, you could see that they were going there. [Nombre 083] said – Ah okay, they haven’t thrown anyone out. Subject said – I don’t know, from where that guy is you can’t see anything. [Nombre 083] said – Okay. Subject said – No, from where [Nombre 240] is everything looks calm. [Nombre 083] said – Okay. Subject said – Okay. The conversation ends…/…From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0155185. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 138]. This call was made at 23:14 hours on September 29, 2019. [Nombre 050] alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with a female who uses telephone line [Valor 138]. They begin speaking about matters not relevant to the investigation until second 00:04:11 when the female said – Who are you with, take it off speakerphone, now. [Nombre 065] said – Let’s go, I’m with [Nombre 074], with [Nombre 240] and with. Off-phone subject said – [Nombre 254]. [Nombre 065] said – And with [Nombre 254], the deceased. Subject who identifies himself with the alias “[Nombre 240]” said – I’m going to pick up the boss lady, boss lady. Female said – Who is it. [Nombre 240] said – Well it’s me, [Nombre 240], I’m going to pick her up at the house. Female said – It sounds like the voice of “[Nombre 255].” [Nombre 240] said – No, no, not at all, I’ll go and pick her up. Afterwards they speak about matters that are not of interest.” From the last communication, it is evidenced that alias [Nombre 065] would maintain a close relationship with various active subjects of the narco organization described in previous reports, the same one is led by [Nombre 001] alias [Nombre 136], as was set out in the following excerpt: “...female said – Who are you with, take it off speakerphone, now. [Nombre 065] said – Let’s go, I’m with [Nombre 074], with [Nombre 240] and with. Off-phone subject said – [Nombre 254]. [Nombre 065] said – And with [Nombre 254], the deceased. Subject who identifies himself with the alias “[Nombre 240]” said – I’m going to pick up the boss lady, boss lady...” in which it is reflected that the accused ([Nombre 007]) would maintain an approach with [Nombre 256] alias [Nombre 257], who within the organization would carry out the functions of hired killer (sicariato); he would also maintain a relationship with [Nombre 019] alias [Nombre 240], who within this criminal structure would be carrying out tasks of storing illicit substances. Finally, the following call is mentioned: “From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0159716.\n\nThe intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 143]. This call was made at 10:54 hours on October 3, 2019. [Name 050], alias “[Name 065]”, spoke with an unidentified subject who is the owner of telephone line [Value 143]. [Name 065] said – Hello. Subject said – Tell me. [Name 065] said – [Name 240] is on his way to you. Subject said – No. [Name 065] said – Ah, look, why don't you do me a huge favor. Subject said – Tell me. [Name 065] said – You're going to give me a down payment, huh. Subject said – Uh-huh, uh-huh. [Name 065] said – Why don't you put it there in La Uruca and pick up what you were going to get there at [Name 240]'s place, I already told him to go to your house but I don't know if he already went. Subject said – Okay, where in La Uruca. [Name 065] said – There, in La Uruca, by the school. Subject said – Ah okay. [Name 065] said – There is a Sucre. Subject said – Are you around there. [Name 065] said – I'm on my way there, I'll be there in less than five minutes. Subject said – I'm leaving now, I'm leaving now. [Name 065] said – Or if you want, tough luck for [Name 240], so that he pays you that or tell him to wait, however you like, because I told him to go to your house and he told me he was on his way. Subject said – Okay okay, I'll wait for him. [Name 065] said – Well, I'm going to call now to say, well. Subject said – Okay”. It can be perfectly noted how alias “[Name 240]” is the one who has the drug stored and also receives instructions for its delivery [sic] (cf. pages 573 to 575 of the judgment). From the information recorded in the judgment it is not possible to derive that, in effect, alias “[Name 240]” carried out actions related to the sale of drugs to third parties. Note that in sequence 0029338 [Name 161], alias “[Name 083]”, talks with a third party about a police intervention and it is only noted that he is near the domicile of “[Name 240]”, but at no time is any drug transaction alluded to. For its part, in sequence 0155185, proximity is verified between [Name 050], alias “[Name 065]” and alias “[Name 240]” but again, any direct reference to drug trafficking by the latter is lacking. Finally, in sequence 0159716, alias “[Name 065]”, talks with a third party and tells him to wait for a subject with the alias “[Name 240]” because he is going to deliver something to him, which by the context of the investigation and the activities carried out by the subjects could be drugs, but the judgment does not detail whether or not the delivery was completed and, if so, what was delivered. Unlike other communications captured during the investigation stage, in which terms fully related to drugs were used, for example “babies” to refer to cocaine, in the captured dialogues the language used —although it is suggestive of some illicit transaction—, does not make it possible to derive, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a transaction was indeed carried out, that what was traded was drugs, and that this was ultimately supplied by alias “[Name 240]”. As already indicated in another section of this pronouncement, conversations that allude to drug transactions that were ultimately not completed would not give rise to criminal liability. In addition to the foregoing, the judgment does not explain for what reason it concludes that alias “[Name 240]” is the defendant ([Name 019]), but rather takes it for granted. On this point it merely transcribes a passage from the statement of a witness, whom it does not identify —but whom this Tribunal can verify is [Name 092]— in which reference is made to the investigative proceedings that were carried out in relation to alias “[Name 240]”; however, from the transcribed excerpt it is not clear, and the judgment also does not explain, in what way [Name 019] came to be linked to said alias. And it is that, taking into account the content of the telephone communications from which possible drug transactions could be derived, only an alias is alluded to, it was relevant to clarify that aspect. It seems it was a matter that, for the trial court, at the time of issuing the judgment, was totally clear, and for that reason it issued the conviction; however, it was not adequately reflected in the pronouncement. Apart from the communications alluded to, the other elements analyzed by the trial court to support the conviction consist of the result of the search warrant carried out at the home of the accused [Name 019], from which a total of 199.48 grams of flowering tops of the cannabis sativa plant, an electronic scale, ₡359,000.00 colones, and several cell phones were recovered. This tribunal considers that, given the deficiencies pointed out, the finding of that evidence at the defendant's home, by itself, does not allow supporting the conviction. Note that the judgment does not mention that during the investigation, surveillance, seizures from third parties, controlled drug purchases, or any other type of proceeding were carried out that would allow determining that [Name 019], in effect, distributed drugs from that property. The only source of information on this point is the wiretaps, which then brings us back to the deficiencies already pointed out, because no communications were recorded in which the accused directly participates in the sale of drugs; rather, his link is made through an alias, in communications held by third parties. Clearly, as it is a conviction judgment, it is not for this Chamber to fill gaps in the judgment's grounds that imply a probative analysis that could not be broadly challenged at a later stage of the process, so the appropriate course in this scenario is to annul the judgment issued and order a retrial, so that in a new adversarial hearing, held by a different composition of the trial court, the criminal liability of the defendant is discussed again. Based on the foregoing, by majority, the first ground of appeal managed by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, and the fifth ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga are granted; consequently, the declaration of criminal liability of said defendant for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled, as well as the sentence imposed, and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of those points. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With profound respect, I separate myself from the decision of the majority of this ad quem chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I deny the first ground of the appeal of the accused [Name 019], and the fifth ground of the impugnation brief of his private defense. After reviewing the intellectual grounds of the judgment (folio 560 and following), with respect to the determination of the facts for which [Name 019] was convicted, I consider that the trial court did state reasons for its decision in accordance with the duty arising from articles 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As it did with other accused persons, in the case of [Name 019] the a quo began by recapitulating the course of the telephone intervention, for which it highlighted that the name of [Name 046] began to be linked with [Name 001] as well as with ([Name 004]), [Name 161], and [Name 010], as was set out in reports number IP-033-EN-19 and IP-128-EN-19, the judgment highlighting that as a result of the interception of communications on the telephone service used by the leader of the network, accused [Name 001], it was determined that the associated telephone line was registered in the name of [Name 046], as well as that one of the vehicles used by [Name 001], license plate [Value 144], was also registered in the name of [Name 046]. Along the same lines, the tribunal solidified the link of [Name 046] with the criminal organization in question, for which it analyzed that in March 2019, [Name 046] was approached by the Fuerza Pública aboard another vehicle, with the outstanding fact being that he was accompanied by several people who were part of the criminal organization, namely: [Name 010] and Jeison Leitón. More importantly, the decision continues studying the cited police reports, mentioning that in a surveillance and follow-up carried out on June 3, 2019, in León XIII, it was observed: “…on public roads a group of subjects was observed engaging in what appeared to be a meeting, as well as several vehicles that were in front of them belonging to the same, among which were the accused [Name 046] alias ‘[Name 252]’, who was habitually observed driving the vehicle brand Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado, color Beige, license plates [Value 035].” (cf. judgment, page 566).\n\nSubsequently, the judgment also analyzes some calls transcribed in report IP-196-EN-19, reasoning that: “The communications reveal the direct links of [Nombre 046] with the criminal structure, reflected in communications under sequence 0336138 and 0336139 as alias [Nombre 252] communicated with [Nombre 022] alias [Nombre 123] using telephone line [Valor 145], telephone service used by [Nombre 015], who is the mother of alias [Nombre 124] and alias [Nombre 123], likewise in the communications under sequences 0159673 and 0161947 and made from telephone line [Valor 146] used by the leader of the criminal organization [Nombre 001] alias [Nombre 084], who on several occasions referred to alias [Nombre 252] and even usurped the identity of [Nombre 046] upon receiving a call from a telephone company, which clearly reflects the mutual trust between [Nombre 001] and alias [Nombre 252], more abundantly in the communication under sequence 0422880, where alias [Nombre 252] made a call to telephone line [Valor 147] from IMEI 354388064791107 which is fully controlled by [Nombre 029] alias [Nombre 083] similarly showing the link. In the communication under sequence 0355249 it was possible to obtain how alias [Nombre 252] used telephone line [Valor 148] linked to IMEI 358463090965128, following the communication made by alias [Nombre 109], again reflecting the links of ([Nombre 046]) with the collaborators of ([Nombre 001])” (cf. judgment, pages 567 and 568). The lower court (a quo) points out that, based on this information, the telephone of [Nombre 046] was intercepted, highlighting a call (sequence 0159673) about which the judgment states: “…it is a conversation between acquaintances or friends, where it is [Nombre 001] himself who refers to his closeness with alias “[Nombre 252]”, they are in a public place in the company of other people.” (ibid., page 568). Now, the name of [Nombre 019] and, above all, his nickname; the court begins to assess it from the social event that took place on June 23, 2019, according to which the judicial police corroborated that [Nombre 001] gathered his collaborators and shared with them. In this regard, the judgment cites police report number IP-227-EN-19, in which the investigators identified the people they observed at said meeting, establishing that one of the attendees was: “…[Nombre 019] alias “[Nombre 240]”…”. As can be noted, the origin of the knowledge of the identity and the nickname of the defendant of interest at this point in the analysis is the work experience of the judicial investigators, since in the cited report they recorded that the observed person has that name and is known by that alias. In this regard, the court correctly indicated: “…a person who for months prior was already known to the Judicial Police to be part of the criminal group, a circumstance that was gradually accredited to the degree of certainty with this event, that is to say, it is established that [Nombre 019] was totally related and formed part of the criminal group led by Mr. [Nombre 001].” (ibid., page 572). The judgment did not overlook the issue of [Nombre 019]'s nickname, since when referring to the trial testimony of officer [Nombre 092], it highlighted his contribution on the matter: “The nickname gulú of ([Nombre 019]), according to the transcripts there were a series of transcripts, we undertook the task of carrying out joint work in addition to verifying confidential information, being that the alias was obtained with some proceedings in some approaches carried out by the Public Force, with a motorcycle the alias is linked, in addition the location of the property was coincident, on one occasion [Nombre 083] indicated that they were at gulú's house having reference to our part” (ibid., page 577). Thus, in my opinion, it is clear that the judgment did not take for granted that ([Nombre 019]) is known as “[Nombre 240]”, but rather held it to be proven based on police experience and on the basis of the express statement that, on that aspect, the cited officer made during the adversarial hearing. In other words, the police authority already had knowledge of that nickname, and that is why when they saw [Nombre 019] at the activity on June 23, 2019, they identified him by his name and moniker; and, based on all of this, the deciding body assessed the accused act as having occurred on October 3, 2019, that is, just over three months after the cited meeting. Along those lines, the judgment, after assessing the call recorded under sequence number 0159716, held it to be proven that alias “[Nombre 240]” had the drug stored in his home and received the directives to deliver it, thus confirming his role and participation as a co-perpetrator in the criminal organization of [Nombre 001]. Finally, the conviction of ([Nombre 019]) was solidified evidentiarily when the court assessed the result of the search of his home, which occurred ten days after the referred telephone call. Upon estimating that [Nombre 019] had in his domicile 199.48 grams of flowering tops of cannabis sativa, as well as an electronic scale, several mobile phones and cash, the lower court (a quo) concluded that: “…[Nombre 019] had no type of formal economic income, it is accredited that the quantity of drug, money, cell phones as well as the scale, are typical of possession for the sale of drugs that was delegated to him (…) and the perspective must not be lost that the court has judged a criminal organization where each of its members fulfilled a designated role within the distribution of functions that was manifest from the prior agreed plan.” (ibid., page 577). Such being the case, from my point of view, the substantiation of the conviction of [Nombre 019], was indeed done in accordance with the requirements of articles 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), which is why my vote is to declare the first ground of the appeal filed by the defendant in exercise of his material defense without merit.\n\nSecond ground of appeal managed by [Nombre 019], in exercise of his material defense. It claims “Lack of intellectual substantiation (falta de fundamentación intelectiva) in the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales)”. He asserts that there is a lack of substantiation regarding the way in which the court held it to be certain that the money used for the payment of the down payment on the vehicle license plate [Valor 125] came from narcotics trafficking. He points out that, based on that fact, a sentence of ten years of imprisonment was issued for the crime of money laundering. He details that, according to the prosecutorial accusation (acusación fiscal), the money was collected in colones and the judgment does not explain how the transformation of the funds into dollars to make the vehicle payments occurred. He estimates that it is not a peripheral aspect; on the contrary, it demonstrates that there is no relationship between the collected money and the illicit activity. He asserts that the lack of substantiation on the way in which the money conversion was made, by which person, in which financial institution and in what quantity, constitutes a gap in the reasoning (motivación) that does not allow for appellate review of the reasoning carried out and affects the right of defense. He argues that it was necessary to establish whether any financial institution verified the origin of the funds. He details that both the accusation and the judgment refer to him buying the vehicle and placing it at the disposal of the criminal organization, but it does not justify who gave him the money to acquire it, nor the means of proof that allowed for the verification of the fact. As a grievance, he asserts he was condemned for the crime of money laundering, without the essential elements of the criminal type (tipo penal) being explained to him and he was prevented from offering exculpatory evidence.\n\n**Fourth ground** of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, on behalf of the defendant ([Name 019]). It challenges the conviction for the crime of money laundering. Regarding the “vehicle transactions” attributed to ([Name 019]) in relation to other co-defendants, he indicates that it was not proven that his client acted with intent (dolo) or bad faith, but rather participated as a buyer without the selling company objecting to or questioning the origin of the money. He adds that the sales were made on credit and that there is a lack of evidence, because the illicit origin of the money has not been proven. Regarding the harm, he specifies that “my defendant's right to remain free was violated.” He requests that his client be acquitted of all penalty and responsibility, due to the absence of intent (dolo). In the alternative, he requests that the sentence be annulled and a retrial be ordered. **The claim must be declared without merit.** The *a quo* issued a conviction against ([Name 019]) for the crime of money laundering, having accredited the following facts: “*1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they maintained under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for receiving money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operating model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: […] The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for this purpose the use of various means to that end. 3.- This drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction, the commercialization of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: […] [Name 019]: member of the criminal group, his hierarchical rank within the group was to provide collaboration to other high-ranking members of the criminal group, such as the accused ([Name 046]) in the storage and sale of drugs. Moreover, his **functionality as a front man (testaferro) was proven, by facilitating his name for the registration of high economic value assets, property of the criminal organization led by [Name 001]** […] *5.- During the investigation period between the months of April 2018 and the month of October 2020, the Criminal Organization formed by the investigated [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016] and [Name 019], as a consequence of the significant illicit profits produced from the serious activity of trafficking and selling narcotics, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001] […] *5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of assets acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030], carried out the necessary steps for the purchase and registry inscription of the vehicle brand Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this asset at the agency Purdy Motor S.A. for the sum of ₡ 44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was assigned by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001]*” [sic] (cf. pages 276 to 299 of the judgment). From the reading of the intellectual reasoning, it is apparent that the *a quo* addressed the process of acquiring the vehicle brand Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 125], in the section called “Facts relating to [Name 030] and [Name 019].” Thus, the existing relationship between [Name 030] and [Name 019] is detailed, by virtue of both having participated in the process of acquiring the asset.\n\nThe judgment takes up passages from the statement of judicial investigator Alexander Mejía Alvarado, from the experts Rodrigo Chaves Calvo and Elizabeth Segura González, from the police report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 dated April 22, 2022, and its extension. From this recount, it stands out as a relevant fact that [Name 030] was responsible for the reservation of the vehicle and two initial payments; while [Name 019] made several cash payments that were credited via bank deposit. To verify this circumstance, the judgment takes up the extension of police report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 (cf. pages 3764 to 3787 of the investigation file), in which the data derived from the Purdy Motor agency file was recorded. It is verified that, dated July 6, 2018, there is a sales invoice for the vehicle to [Name 019] for an amount of $77,500.00, for the acquisition of the vehicle with plate [Value 125]. This individual made several payments: “*Folio N° 04. Invoice N° 1132727, of April 27, 2018, where Mr. [Name 019], made a payment with cash money of FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AMERICAN DOLLARS ($4,500.00). Folio N° 05.*\n\nInvoice No. 1132760, dated June 29, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 019] made the payment in cash of SIX THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($6,000.00) [… ] Folio No. 08. Invoice No. 1132810, dated July 5, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 019], who made the payment in cash of FIVE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($5,000.00). Folio No. 09. Invoice No. 1132837, dated July 6, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 019], made the payment in cash of THREE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($3,000.00) [… ] Folio No. 12. The Release Order No. 0287737, dated July 6, 2018, is observed, corresponding to the delivery of unit 177968 to Mr. [Nombre 019]. Folio No. 13. Consists of the Money Receipt No. 0347838, dated July 6, 2018, in which he paid in cash of FIFTY US DOLLARS ($50.00), made by Mr. ([Nombre 019]), for the payment of the metal license plates» (cfr. fs. 843 to 844 of the judgment). In addition to the foregoing, as indicated, the evidence shows that the vehicle was reserved by [Nombre 334], who made the initial payments that were later transferred in favor of [Nombre 019]: Folio No. 03. Invoice No. 1006462, dated March 16, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 030], made the payment in cash of ONE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($1,000.00), noting the legend \"reservation VH nuevo EXPO\" [… ] Folio No. 06. Invoice No. 1006187, dated March 11, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 030] made the payment in cash of ONE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($1,000.00). Folio No. 07 Invoice No. 1132702, dated June 25, 2018, where Mr. [Nombre 030] made the payment in cash of FIVE THOUSAND US DOLLARS. ($5,000.00), recording the legend \"Installment CT VH NUE\" [… ] Folio No. 18. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26734, dated July 5, 2019, with advance No. EXP-00007989, where the client [Nombre 030], transferred the advance to [Nombre 019], for the sum of ONE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($1,000.00). Folio No. 20. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26713, without a date registration, with advance No. PCO-00597833 and EXP-00008265, where the client [Nombre 030], transferred the advance to [Nombre 019], the sum of SIX THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($6,000.00)» (cfr. fs. 843 to 845 of the judgment). Finally, in the acquisition of the vehicle, [Nombre 033], wife of [Nombre 030], also intervened: «Folio No. 10. Invoice No. 1116730, dated November 28, 2018, where Ms. [Nombre 033], made the cash payment of FIVE HUNDRED US DOLLARS ($500.00). Folio No. 11. There is a document called DEBIT NOTE No. 04355737, dated July 6, 2018, recording that Ms. [Nombre 033], assigned the vehicle make Volkswagen, style Jett MK6, model 2016, white color, license plate [Valor 114], as part of payment, receiving it for TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED US DOLLARS ($23,200.00), money that was added to the account of the new good as income for advance [… ] Folio No. 14. The Advance Transfer Slip No. 26738, dated July 6, 2018, is observed, where the client [Nombre 033], transferred advance No. PCN-00001271 to [Nombre 019], for an amount of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED US DOLLARS ($23,200.00). Folio No. 16. Advance Transfer Slip No. 26711, dated June 28, 2018, with advance No. PCO-00595470, with the client [Nombre 033], transferring to Mr. [Nombre 019], an amount of FIVE HUNDRED US DOLLARS ($500.00)» (cfr. fs. 844 to 845). Regarding the economic profile of [Nombre 019], the judgment takes up a passage from police report 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21 dated April 22, 2022, which states: «5.1.17 [Nombre 019], fully identified in report 25-SLC-CI-20, is not registered with the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) as an \"Employee\" nor as an \"Employer\", nor is he registered with the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda) under any Economic Activity, he has no participation in commercial companies and also does not have products in the National Financial System..[… ]..5.1.17.1 Assets of the investigated [Nombre 019] he has registered in his name the vehicle license plate [Valor 125], make Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX-L, valued at FORTY-FOUR MILLION TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND COLONES (₡44,272,000.00). According to the report of the Narcotics Section No. IP-033-EN-19, this good is related during the investigations in possession of [Nombre 001]» (cfr. fs. 842 to 843 of the judgment). In relation to the economic profile of ([Nombre 019]), expert witness Rodrigo Chaves Calvo also declared at trial, who clarified that the only investigated persons reporting any lawful activity were [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 001], although in an insufficient manner to justify the acquisition of high-value goods such as those identified during the investigation, so consequently [Nombre 019] did not report any lawful remunerative activity that explains the cash payments he made for the acquisition of the motor vehicle. It is highlighted that the judgment also clarifies that during the investigation period it was determined that the vehicle was used by [Nombre 001], which was verified on December 3, 2018, at around 8:46 p.m., when he was approached by Public Force (Fuerza Pública) officers while driving it. From the foregoing, the a quo deduced that, even though the defendant [Nombre 019] was the registered owner of the good, he was not the one who used it, nor the one who supplied the money for its acquisition. This Chamber agrees that it is a valid conclusion, taking into account that, as indicated, the subject does not have a lawful remunerative activity that allows him to obtain a good of such high value. Adding to this that the person in charge of reserving the vehicle and who made the initial payments was a third party, namely [Nombre 030], who was closely related to [Nombre 001], leader of a criminal structure of local drug trafficking.\n\nTo the above must be added other circumstances that were recorded in the judgment and that reinforce that the intervention of [Nombre 019] in that legal transaction was not accidental or in good faith. Note that ([Nombre 019]) also intervened in the acquisition of another vehicle in August 2019, specifically the BMW, X-5 model, license plate [Valor 127], valued at $40,000, at the agency Bavarian Motors CR. S.A., since various payment receipts in dollars and colones issued by the agency are in his name—₡4,500,000.00, $4,703.83, $5,000.00, $840, $3,490.40, $40.00, $4,310.65, $4,980.00—; which in turn are linked to cash deposit vouchers in dollars and colones, generated by various banking entities (cf. pp. 290 to 306 of the evidentiary file). This movable property was finally registered in the name of another of the investigated persons ([Nombre 016]), thereby clarifying the role adopted by this subject, as a collaborator for the acquisition of high-end vehicles for the criminal organization. This last motor vehicle was seen by the judicial police in the possession of a subject identified as [Nombre 268], alias \"[Nombre 269]\", linked to drug trafficking activity at the retail level in criminal case No. 19-000160-062-PE and also of [Nombre 053], who transported in that motor vehicle ₡1,902,600 that were linked in the judgment to drug trafficking activity. The intervention of the accused in the acquisition of this vehicle was addressed in the judgment in the section \"Facts in relation to ([Nombre 016])\", in which it was highlighted: \"[...] a person identified with the name of [Nombre 053] was linked, in which an amount of money and jewelry was seized, and the dog used at that time gave a positive alert for traces of drugs, a seizure that occurred when [Nombre 053] was traveling in the motor vehicle license plate [Valor 127], therefore said motor vehicle according to the records seized and analyzed by the Section of Legitimization of Capitals indicated in report 10-SLC-R-22 AMP I, CPA 15-21, was acquired from the company Bavarian Motors CR S.A., it recorded the co-defendant [Nombre 019] as the buyer, who paid an amount of ($40,000.00) forty thousand United States dollars, which is typical of ways to evade supervisory controls and thus conceal the rights held over the assets, since the vehicle is registered in the name of the accused [Nombre 016]\" (cf. p. 868 of the judgment). Although this last event was not charged to the accused in the indictment, it is relevant at the evidentiary level, to understand the role he played within the criminal structure, as it allows us to rule out—as indicated—that his intervention in the acquisition of the vehicle license plate [Valor 031] was casual or accidental.\n\nOnly within the framework of the fraudulent participation in the money laundering (legitimación de capitales) scheme, which has been pointed out here, can it be explained that a person who does not report a stable source of income allocates large sums of money to the payment of luxury automobiles that are registered in the name of other persons and, even more so, that these are used by individuals other than the persons who acquire them and those who register them in their name. Finally, the judgment also addressed another relevant piece of information, specifically that the asset was transferred to a third party while [Name 019] was detained for this case, which demonstrates said subject's eagerness to divert the asset from any judicial action: \"*Attention is drawn to a registration movement of the vehicle [Value 031] at the time when [Name 019] was already deprived of liberty for the case at hand, which was recorded as follows: 'The foregoing situation was extracted from the digital platform of the National Registry, individualized in deed number two hundred sixty–five of Notary Public Juan Carlos Mora Carrera, apparently signed on March 10, 2021, in San José, Pérez Zeledón, where [Name 019] alias \"[Name 240]\", identity card [Value 007] (being in a condition of deprivation of liberty located in the Electronic Mechanisms Unit Pérez Zeledón), sells to [Name 270], identity card [Value 153], the aforementioned motor vehicle, Toyota brand, Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style, circulation plates [Value 125] for the sum of five million colones, also accepting the lien that encumbers the asset in favor of the financial company Cafsa S.A., however, the full payment for the cancellation of stamps and the transfer before the Banco de Costa Rica was made hours after the seizure of the vehicle on March 16, 2021 (Image No. 4) a situation that generates even more doubt about the origin of the motor vehicle, given that, apparently, by the date of the seizure the notarial act had already been carried out before Mr. Mora Carrera, nevertheless, the female [Name 270] indicated only what was recorded in the interview and made no mention at any time of the ownership of the asset, the signing of any document or similar, reason for which, the questioned transfer could be considered as a strategy to not lose the vehicle and attempt to manipulate reality or the true intention of hiding the asset.' (see extension III report 25-SLC-CI-20)\" (cf. pp. 852 to 853 of the judgment). Based on the exposed circumstances, this Chamber agrees with the *a quo*, in that, based on the evidence produced at trial, it was possible to consider the facts attributed to [Name 019] constituting a crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) as proven, insofar as he intervened in the acquisition of the Toyota vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style, circulation plate [Value 125], with money coming from drug trafficking activity, which is verified by the intervention in the acquisition of [Name 030], a close collaborator of [Name 001], added to the fact that the defendant [Name 019] does not have lawful remunerative activities that would allow him to obtain an asset of such a high value and that he was not its possessor. Now, in order to respond to some of the specific complaints raised by both the technical and material defense, it is important to highlight that the *a quo* considered the medium-scale drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal organization that was prosecuted in this case as proven. Thus, the supply of drugs to two criminal organizations was established, as detailed in facts 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36 and 4.37, which was extensively analyzed in considerando X, to which reference is made for its reading. As a result of that activity, which generated an approximate profit of ₡5,100,000.00 per kilogram of cocaine traded, the flow of cash that the criminal organization received was generated. When analyzing the participation of ([Name 004]), it was also possible to determine a whole logistical operation developed by said subject and his wife [Name 026] for the conversion of national currency into foreign currency, for which they recruited third parties who appeared at different banking entities to carry out the currency exchange, which explains why some of the assets acquired by the organization were paid for in dollars. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that there are no defects in the analysis of the evidence set forth in the judgment, regarding the determination of criminal responsibility of [Name 019] in the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Consequently, the second ground of the appeal filed by the defendant and the fourth ground of his legal representative are declared ***without merit***.\n\n**XXIX. First ground of the appeal of the judgment initiated by the attorney-at-law Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense attorney for ([Name 016]).**\n\nAlleges \"Lack of intellective reasoning in relation to the facts held as proven and violation of the principle of non-contradiction.\" Mr. Soto Aguilar considers that articles 39 of the Political Constitution, as well as articles 142, 184 and 363 subsections b) and c), of the Criminal Procedure Code have been violated. He indicates that the duty to provide reasoning for the judgment includes descriptive and intellective evidentiary motivation, and in relation to this second stage, it must be express, clear, complete, legitimate, concordant, non-contradictory and logical. He states that, in this matter, the defendant [Name 050] is the brother of the accused ([Name 016]), and the former is accused of having recruited the latter to store drug caches and legitimize assets of the criminal organization (facts 4.20 and 5.13 of the accusatory instrument, which he transcribes). Thus, the technical defense indicates that the conduct attributed to ([Name 016]) depends directly on the participation in the criminal organization attributed to her brother, [Name 017]. However, the appellant points out that the a quo suppressed from the judgment the facts in which [Name 050] appeared as an accused, as he was absent at the time of the trial, ordering in relation to him the testimony of pieces (case file 23-000005-0622-PE). To this effect, Mr. Soto Aguilar inserts a portion of the intellective evidentiary reasoning of the appealed judgment, in which it is indicated that the first of the events demonstrated against [Name 016] was the possession and storage of drugs, which occurred on December 5, 2019 at 3:52 p.m., while the second event was located on December 24, 2019 and \"it is held as demonstrated against [Name 050] and his sister ([Name 016])\" (f. 7318 vto.). He argues that it is illegitimate to hold as certain the existence of [Name 016]'s link to the organization, since this necessarily depended on her brother's intervention in the facts and, more seriously, the participation of [Name 017] in a specific fact was held as certain, without him having been tried in this case. He asserts, as a grievance, that if the evidence had been analyzed according to the rules of sound rational criticism, his client would have been acquitted of all penalty and responsibility. The ground is dismissed. The judgment held the following facts linking [Name 016] as proven: \"1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the defendants [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 030], [Name 004], [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046], [Name 016], [Name 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money resulting from the illicit activity. 2. The operative model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: The storage and dosing of the drug caches acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of caches to the various points of commercialization. The commercialization of drug caches belonging to the criminal group to other narco-gangs based in the national territory. The commercialization of drug caches belonging to the narco-structure to third-party drug dependents, through the properties that the organization held for such purposes, 'Bunker' type, as well as on the public roads of the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for this purpose the use of various means to that end. 3.\n\nThis drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so that each of its members carried out specific functions, all in a single direction, the commercialization of drugs and the protection of the group over the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: […] [Name 016]: member of the criminal structure, who among other functions assisted the accused [Name 050] in the storage tasks of drug caches belonging to the narco gang in her home, and she was also another of the members who were responsible for facilitating the organization in the concealment of money from the criminal activity by registering in her name movable property acquired with the proceeds of drug distribution and sale, to make them available for the enjoyment of the members of the criminal group. […] 4. During the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2019, the criminal organization made up of the accused developed a series of criminal actions in pursuit of the organization's ultimate goal, which is drug trafficking, among which the following stand out: […] 4.20 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] assigned the accused [Name 050] (absent), so that during the period from the month of April 2018 until the month of October 2020, he would carry out functions such as the distribution and sale of drugs in the sector of the León XIII housing complex, specifically Marijuana. Likewise, the accused [Name 050] delegated the function of possession, storage and sale of drugs to his sister, the accused ([Name 016]), who carried out the sales of drugs to third-party consumers from her home in the same León XIII housing complex and in turn also participated in the criminal group as a front person (testaferro) in the registration of high economic value assets. 4.21 On December 5, 2019, at 4:52 p.m., as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Name 016]) kept under her custody and possession in her home, located in [...] a cache of narcotics, an action that was carried out in assistance and collaboration with her brother [Name 050]. 4.22 On December 24, 2019, at 2:58 p.m., as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Name 016]) kept under her custody and possession in her home, located in [...] a cache of narcotics, an action that was directly ordered by her brother, the accused [Name 050]. […] 5. During the investigation period between the months of April 2018 and until the month of October 2020, the Criminal Organization made up of the investigated [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016], [Name 019], [Name 033], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement and rights over different assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001]. […] 5.13 During the period between the month of January 2018 and until the month of October 2020, the accused person identified as [Name 050], with the purpose of inserting, diversifying and layering the money from drug trafficking, recruited his sister, the accused ([Name 016]), in order for her to provide her function as a front person (testaferro) to conceal the illicit origin of movable property, such as high-end vehicles, which were acquired by the criminal group, with money from drug trafficking, an activity of which the accused ([Name 016]) maintained full knowledge.\n\nAmong the vehicles registered in the accused's name are the following: a Volkswagen vehicle, Jetta MK6 style, license plate [Valor 032], which holds a value of 9,022,000.00 (nine million twenty-two thousand colones), a BMW vehicle, X5 style, with a value of $37,930.00 (thirty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty dollars), money that was paid in cash at the dealership Bavarian Motors CR S.A. by the accused on September 6, 2019, and a Ford vehicle, Ranger style, license plate [Valor 034], valued at the sum of ₡15,000,000.00 (fifteen million colones) [...] 6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, search, seizure, and confiscation (allanamiento, registro y secuestro) proceedings were carried out at the various points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the defendants [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts and that is set out below: [...] 6.13 Regarding the result of the search, seizure, and confiscation proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Nombre 016], the following result was obtained, and these items correspond to objects acquired with money from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cellphone, blue and purple in color, with IMEI 868139049562744 and IMEI 868139049586750, in fair condition, Sim card with non-visible phone number. • A Huawei brand cellphone, gray in color, with no visible IMEI and a broken screen. • A Samsung brand cellphone, black in color, with IMEI 356017/07/356627/7, with its back panel broken. • A Samsung brand cellphone, gray in color, with IMEI 351712/10/099841/3 and IMEI 351713/10099841/1. • A total amount of cash in the amount of ₡3,321,000.00 (three million three hundred twenty-one thousand colones), and $60 (sixty dollars), money that was generated from the criminal activity of drug sales carried out by the accused ([Nombre 016]). • A Samsung brand cellphone, pink in color, with a broken screen, IMEI 3585518/08/872698/2 and IMEI 358517/08/872698/0. • A Samsung A10 brand cellphone, red in color, with IMEI 358100/10/833702/9. • A Huawei brand cellphone, model JKMLX3, black in color with two IMEI numbers, the first IMEI 866861049485004, the second IMEI 866861049520016, with a broken screen in fair condition, with its black 16gb Sandisk SD card and Movistar SIM card serial 89506041010026535607. • A Huawei brand cellphone, black in color, model JKM-LX3, with IMEI 865365042597741, with a black Adita brand 51)8613 card, with a sim card serial 8950604401712274511f in fair condition. • A Huawei brand cellphone, black in color, with two IMEI, the first 865163044717965 and the second 865163044757979, in fair condition with a white and red Claro SIM card with serial number 8950603018885859646F without an SD card. • A non-lethal Glock 9mm type pistol, serial 2016N061733, black in color, 35 gold-colored rounds marked Blazer 9mm Luger brand, two unfired 12 gauge rounds, Super X brand, Western. • A digital video recorder with serial number D63292428, white in color, with its respective power adapter\" [sic] (cfr. pp. 276 to 321). As is evident from the foregoing account, the argument made by the technical defense counsel for ([Nombre 016])—to the effect that the suppression from the statement of facts of the actions linking [Nombre 050] made it impossible to attribute criminal liability to her client—is untenable. Observe that the factual framework describes the accusation made against ([Nombre 016]) clearly, precisely, and in detail, both for the crime of drug trafficking and for that of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). While it is true that it is stated that ([Nombre 016])'s link to the criminal organization occurred through her brother [Nombre 017], this does not imply that, in his absence, the court was barred from trying her. This is a logic that sidelines what is truly relevant, namely, the reconstruction of events that may be made through the evidence adduced at trial. If this evidence effectively pointed to that link, the court could validly determine the criminal liability of the accused ([Nombre 016]), since she is the person being tried. What the absence of a person from the proceeding prevents is their conviction in that condition (for which reason they must be tried at another time), but it does not eliminate or erase from reality the very existence of the events in which not only she but also other persons could have taken part. It must be remembered that liability in criminal matters is personal in nature, so it does not depend on the procedural situation of the other defendants involved. Sound rational criticism (sana crítica racional) makes it possible, even in the case of common evidence, to draw the corresponding conclusions for each accused person; therefore, the joint prosecution of all accused persons, although it may be practical or ideal, is not indispensable as the appellant proposes. The fact that the trial court stated that, based on the evidence adduced, it was feasible to deduce that [Nombre 050] participated in the criminal dynamic in no way implies a trial in absentia, nor a violation of his fundamental rights. As can be observed, said individual was not declared responsible for any crime, nor was any sentence imposed on him, and therefore, when his trial takes place, what the a quo stated in the judgment under analysis does not compromise, nor bind, the authority hearing the matter. In due course, the discussion of [Nombre 050]’s criminal liability—if he appears in the proceeding—will be conducted based on the accusation made against him and the evidence adduced in a possible trial, exactly as occurs in any other proceeding where a severance of items has been ordered against a person to be tried separately. The defense attempts to construct a non-existent procedural obstacle based on a generic invocation of the adversarial principle (principio de contradicción), which does not overcome the barrier of simple disagreement and does not evidence any error, much less a grievance for her client. Accepting her argument would not only favor impunity but would also run counter to a significant number of procedural principles, including that of swift and complete justice, as well as effective judicial protection. Based on the foregoing, having found that there has been no violation of the adversarial principle by the suppression of the facts attributed to [Nombre 050] from the accredited factual framework, the ground is declared without merit. The remaining aspects of the complaint, as they relate to the assessment of evidence, will be analyzed in the following considerandos.\n\nXXX.\n\nSecond ground of the challenge filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defender of ([Nombre 016]). He claims \"Lack of probative and intellective grounds for the illicit conduct held as proven.\" The challenger points out the non-observance of Article 39 of the Political Constitution, as well as Articles 142, 184, and 363 subsections b) and c), of the Criminal Procedural Code, considering that the trial court gave the evidence a scope that is not possible in accordance with the principle of sufficient derivation. In this regard, he states that ([Nombre 016]) never had her telephone line intervened, so the two communications of interest in relation to her and that are transcribed in the intellective analysis — those made on December 5 and 24, 2019 — refer, according to the sentencing court, to conversations held between [Nombre 017] and [Nombre 016] from telephone number [Valor 104], which was indeed intervened. He argues that, according to the evidence, the telephone number established as belonging to [Nombre 016] is [Valor 154]. Despite this, the communication of December 24, 2019, is made from the intercepted number [Valor 104] and the number 8820-3184. The technical defense alleges that, beyond the identity or similarity that the a quo asserts in relation to the voice of [Nombre 016], there is no way to determine if the female voice heard on the call dated December 24, 2019, belongs to his client. Despite this, without any basis, since there was no independent means of proof, the sentencing court states that in the call made on December 24, 2019, the same dynamic of the conversation held on the 5th of the same month and year is repeated. As a grievance, he argues that, had the evidence been analyzed in accordance with the rules of sound judgment, the accused would have been acquitted of all penalty and responsibility, deeming that a reasonable doubt existed regarding the events held as proven. For reasons different from those alleged, by majority, the ground is granted. Contrary to what the technical defense asserted, the a quo did explain the reasons why it determined that the accused [Nombre 016] was the person who conversed with [Nombre 050] in the communications with sequence numbers 0125419, at 4:52 PM on December 5, 2019, and 0141695 at 2:58 PM on December 24, 2019, derived from the interception of line [Valor 104]. The court indicated that the voice in both communications is the same one recorded in conversations with [Nombre 001], in which the latter calls her by name. Furthermore, the oral and public debate extended over several months, so the court was able to hear and recognize the voice of the accused persons, which constitutes an additional element that allowed it to corroborate the information. It must be remembered that the Costa Rican criminal process is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence, which allows a fact to be proven by any lawful means of proof. However, this Chamber observes that the accreditation of the facts constituting drug trafficking attributed to the defendant was once again carried out based on the content of the telephone communications, without any other external corroborating element distinct from the relationship of the accused with other defendants in this case. It can be seen that in the section identified as \"Hechos en contra de [Nombre 050] (ausente) y ([Nombre 016]) asignados por [Nombre 001]\" (cf. p. 577 of the judgment), the a quo begins its analysis with a broad explanation of the way in which [Nombre 337], his brother [Nombre 338], and the mother of both, [Nombre 015], were linked to the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001]; as well as the intellective basis upon which their criminal responsibility for the illicit act of drug trafficking was derived — to which reference will be made in another section of the resolution. The foregoing served as background for the analysis carried out regarding [Nombre 050], who, according to the accusation and judgment, delegated part of the drug distribution and sale functions to his sister ([Nombre 016]). This investigated person's telephone communications were intervened, by jurisdictional order, through telephone number [Valor 104] linked to IMEI 867265037177269. Then, conversations of said subject are analyzed, from which the a quo concludes his participation in activities typical of drug trafficking as a precedent for what it would later say about ([Nombre 016]). Now, regarding the accused, it expressly states: \"Having clear the participation of [Nombre 050] in a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking, two specific events were attributed to him which are held as proven, the first of them being that on December 5, 2019, at 4:52 PM, as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused, ([Nombre 016]), kept under her custody and possession in her home, located in [...], a stash of narcotics, an action that was carried out in assistance and collaboration with her brother [Nombre 050]. To hold the previous event as proven, the following call was available: 'From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0125419. The intervened telephone number maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 105]. This call was made at 4:52 PM on December 5, 2019. [Nombre 050] alias \"[Nombre 065]\" received a call from [Nombre 016], user of the telephone number [Valor 105].\n\n[Nombre 050] said -hello, [Nombre 016] said -look, [Nombre 050] said -what, [Nombre 016] said -it's that he said that you told him there were nine but here there's a little one, like this, skinny, [Nombre 050] said -there are eight, [Nombre 016] said -no, here there are three, why are there three closed things, [Nombre 050] said -they are packs of two, [Nombre 016] said -yes here there are seven and I gave one to him and you gave one to Diego, [Nombre 050] said -there have to be eight there, [Nombre 016] said -what's here, I don't know, what's here is one open and three closed, seven and one that I gave to “[Nombre 272]” and one that [Nombre 325] took, [Nombre 050] said -well yeah idiot, that would be, there are seven there and one that [Nombre 272] has, that's eight, [Nombre 016] said -that's right, yes, but he already took it, one day, [Nombre 050] said -that's why there are eight in total with the one he took, [Nombre 016] said -well yeah stupid, but okay, you tell me there are eight and [Nombre 272] as well, [Nombre 050] said -that there are eight with the one he has, they continue talking about aspects that are not relevant\". Regarding [Nombre 016], the judicial police identified her with ID number [Valor 006], sister of [Nombre 050] and user of the telephone service [Valor 154], in the accusation she is attributed, among other functions, with having assisted the accused [Nombre 050] in the tasks of storing drug stashes belonging to the narco band's property in her home, she was also one of the members responsible for facilitating the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in her name movable assets acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to make them available for the use and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group. In the call that [Nombre 017] makes to her sister [Nombre 016], it is evident that [Nombre 016] is in her home guarding packages or drug stashes, an action she carried out in assistance to her brother [Nombre 017], they talk about how many packages are there, they do sums given some deliveries that [Nombre 016] had made and they reach an agreement that there are eight, which reveals that it involved the storage of drugs, the foregoing based on the analysis that has been established regarding the way in which the police managed to link [Nombre 050] with the criminal group dedicated to trafficking drug stashes. The second specific event demonstrated against [Nombre 050] and his sister ([Nombre 016]) is that on December 24, 2019, at 14:58 hours, as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Nombre 016]), kept under her custody and possession in her home, located in [...], a stash of narcotics, an action that was directly ordered by her brother, the defendant [Nombre 050]. To prove this event, the following call was available: “From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0141695. The intervened telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 155]. This call was made at 14:58 hours on December 24, 2019. [Nombre 050] alias “[Nombre 065]” made a call to an unidentified female, user of telephone line [Valor 155]. Female said -hello, [Nombre 050] said -where are you, Female said -at home, [Nombre 050] said -they're going to drop off a thing for me right now so you can keep it for me, Female said -wait daddy because I can't hear you, a lot of noise, now yes tell me, [Nombre 050] said -right now they're going to drop off a thing for me and you count it for me and keep it for me, Female said – okay, okay, [Nombre 050] said -okay\".\n\nIt is evident that this is a conversation that [Name 050] is having with his sister ([Name 016]), repeating the same dynamic regarding the event of December 5, 2019, where while ([Name 016]) was at her home, she receives a call from her brother who asks her to receive something that they are going to leave for him, giving her the instruction to count it and keep it, reflecting once again the control that ([Name 016]) has over the drug that her brother traffics and with total willingness she answers that yes, she will receive it, which likewise proves [Name 016]'s role regarding the storage of the drug. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is both interlocutors; in the case of ([Name 016]) the voice in both calls is identical, the dynamic coincides given that she is the one who stays in the home where the drug that her brother [Name 050] traffics is stored. As for the address where [Name 016] was located, it is indeed [...] the same home that was raided. On the other hand, in different calls that ([Name 016]) has with [Name 001], her voice is fully recognized, which is the same as in the calls of the two events analyzed in the preceding lines. An example of a call in which [Name 016]'s voice is also recognized is the following: “From [Value 097]. Call identified with sequence number 0218707. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 105]. This call was made at 17:45 hours on February 5, 2020. Sequence number System date and time 0218707 02/05/2020 05:45:23 p.m. [Name 001] alias “[Name 084]” made a call to [Name 016], user of the telephone line [Value 105]. [Name 016] said -hello, [Name 001] said -[Name 016] why don't you do me an urgent favor, why don't you tell “[Name 065]” to answer [Name 099], but urgently, urgently urgently, [Name 016] said -okay I'm going, [Name 001] said -please”; but beyond recognizing [Name 016]'s voice, the hierarchical degree that [Name 001] holds over [Name 050] is evident, given that through [Name 016], [Name 001] orders [Name 017] to answer a call for a guy with the last name [Name 099], to which [Name 016] likewise complied with what was requested by [Name 001].\n\nAll the steps taken were recounted in the trial by investigator [Name 092], who, with respect to what is relevant, stated: \"...in December 2019 the criminal judge informed us of a series of communications in which [Name 050] was coordinating with [Name 001] a possible robbery or rip-off, as a hostile organization is known in police terms; and so it is that in the criminal judge's transcriptions it was reflected how to approach the people and which police vehicles would be assisting them. According to our police experience, that coordination was being done with Public Force personnel, in which they even told [Name 050] how they should act to appear to be OIJ officers; that they should avoid jumping out like crazy people saying bad words and insults. The subject told them to get out calmly, to say 'police, this is a drug operation' and that's it. However, according to the transcription, on occasions outside the telephone, [Name 001] indicated that the targets were the two vehicles, a Corolla and a Rav4, this being consistent with an event that took place on that day, December 19, 2019, if I am not mistaken, in which the deprivation of liberty of a male of Panamanian nationality occurred in the Sabana sector. According to the different statements of the police forces that attended the events, an apparent police checkpoint (retén policial) was being carried out where some of the policemen used balaclavas. Therefore, upon seeing this situation, a unit of the San José Municipal Police approached the event, at which point several subjects fled. On that day, according to the approaches and the steps taken by the acting police forces, it was possible to identify not only the person they had detained but also 2 vehicles, a Corolla and a Rav4. It was possible to detain some of the subjects who participated in the deprivation of liberty, one being alias [Name 252] and the other [Name 349] alias [Name 350]. This is important because at the moment of the approach, [Name 351] was wearing insignia and clothing similar to those used by OIJ investigators; while alias [Name 252], in his flight, was shedding his clothes and was approached in Sabana Norte wearing only his underwear. On his escape route, the police officers who approached the scene located a firearm that, upon checking, was registered in the name of [Name 046] alias [Name 252]. A Kia Rio vehicle was located, I do not remember the license plate, it was registered in the name of [Name 273], this being one of the people who visited [Name 030]. Additionally, a Toyota Four Runner was located, which on our part had been observed on previous dates at the property of alias [Name 252], reflecting this situation how the criminal group, in a very organized manner, was carrying out robberies against other groups or civilians. This is because, according to the complaint of the offended person in this event, they had been stripped of a considerable amount of cash. In relation to [Name 050] alias [Name 065], according to the criminal judge's wiretaps, he was a person in charge of the sale of the drug stash and who delegated the warehousing of the stash to his sister [Name 016]. This is because, according to the judge's transcriptions, on December 24, 2019, communications occurred where [Name 050] delegated not only the delivery of drugs and receipt of money by [Name 016]. On one occasion, thanks to the judge's wiretaps, it was reflected how [Name 016] called [Name 001], expressing her concern since alias [Name 065] had been approached by the police. However, at the moment of the communication, [Name 050] was allowed to continue and immediately picks up the telephone to speak with [Name 001], and he told him that the police, upon approaching him, told him to call his father, to which [Name 001] said to him –and what else?– [Name 050] told him that, furthermore, the Mexicans were going to come and give us all up. According to our experience, this refers to possible robberies that the organization led by [Name 001] may have perpetrated. Additionally, on our part and thanks to the wiretaps, a situation of this nature had already been captured. The link of alias [Name 252] in these events is important, since according to the wiretaps, 2 events about the possible robbery or rip-off of other organizations were also reflected. One of these was captured by the criminal judge's wiretaps in the month of June 2019, in which all the participation and the actual operation carried out by the investigated parties was evident, where according to the judge's transcriptions they even use terms about having been identified by the opposing party, where alias [Name 252] even said -I'm already burned, my car has already been seen, I can't get too close- which, according to the transcriptions, refers to a whole planning and organization by the investigated parties. This remains fully linked with the event that we had already captured on our part as a methodology used by the investigated parties. Furthermore, in the month of March of 2020, the criminal judge again informed us about some communications from alias [Name 065] in which reference was made to another possible robbery, and in which, according to the extra-telephone transcription, [Name 001] gave some indications…\". The evidence in its entirety shows coherence, it is consistent, it supports one another, and that is why, with a degree of certainty, the facts are taken as proven\" [sic] (cfr. fs. 615 to 620 of the judgment). The preceding extract reflects the specific analysis that was carried out regarding the criminal responsibility of ([Name 016]) for the drug trafficking activity she was charged with, which, in the opinion of this Chamber, is limited and insufficient to displace any doubt that could arise from the reading and interpretation of the content of the communications considered. In the first conversation, identified with sequence number 0125419, [Name 050] asks the defendant to count the quantity of a good or object she has in custody; while in the second, he indicates to her that they are going to leave a \"vara\" for her, so that she receives it. We see, then, that the contacts, given the background that was outlined by the a quo regarding the link between ([Name 016]) and persons related to the criminal organization, are suggestive that the good or object they speak of has an illicit nature; however, they are not conclusive. As has been indicated, in the case of the crime of drug trafficking, the information generated from the interception of communications has an indiciary nature and requires other elements of proof to confirm it. For these reasons, in this case, with the intellectual foundation set forth in the judgment and the evidence considered, this Chamber deems that it is not possible to deduce that, in effect, the accused had disposition or the possibility of disposing of any of the prohibited substances referred to in Law No. 8204, and that for this reason she incurred in any of the typical verbs of numeral 58 of the referred law. The information gathered suggests it, but does not confirm it, beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that the accused related to other individuals who did have disposition over drugs for unauthorized use or who were linked to concrete drug trafficking actions does not imply that those circumstances automatically transfer to her or that they can be imputed to her. As has been indicated in other sections of this pronouncement, criminal responsibility is strictly personal, and therefore must be determined based on the concrete, proven actions of each accused person. Her relationship with or belonging to a criminal group clearly constitutes an indicator of relevance that must be analyzed in conjunction with the others, but this circumstance by itself is insufficient for the attribution of criminal responsibility in the terms in which it was carried out. Even this Court takes into consideration that the accused ([Name 016]) was linked to money laundering activities, which are clearly accredited—as will be analyzed further on—so that, in the absence of corroboration of the content of the communications, it would also be feasible to interpret that the interlocutors are conversing about money or another valuable object of interest to the criminal organization. Hence, this Chamber deems that the matter merits a new discussion. By virtue of the above, by majority, the ground is declared with merit; consequently, the declaration of criminal responsibility of the accused [Name 016] for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled, as well as the penalty imposed for said criminality, and a retrial is ordered for a new proceeding, by a different composition of the court of instance. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\nDISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.- With deep respect, I separate myself from the decision of the majority of this ad quem chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare the second ground of the appeal by the private defense of the accused ([Name 016]) without merit. Upon reviewing the judgment, I have been able to appreciate that the determination of the acts committed by [Name 016], constituting her co-authorship in drug trafficking, was preceded by an evidentiary analysis that went beyond the content of two intercepted telephone calls during the course of the investigation. Furthermore, from my point of view, the intellectual study carried out by the court is adequate, since the pieces of evidence were linked to one another, in accordance with the rules of sound human understanding. From folio 577 of the judgment, it can be appreciated that in order to gauge the content of the conversations where allusion is made to the events of December 5 and 24, 2019, the decision-making body had to carry out a very meticulous scrutiny of the evidence, which began with the link between [Name 016]'s brother and the criminal organization led by [Name 001]. To do so, it started from the content of police report number IP-297-EN18, where [Name 050] began to be associated with [Name 013], an accused who, as was proven, usually accompanied [Name 001] and was an active member of the drug trafficking organization.\n\nOn that occasion, the police referred to a custody and accompaniment that [Name 050] and [Name 004] provided to [Name 001] when he visited the Institutional Care Center formerly known as \"El Buen Pastor\" in Desamparados. However, the link that the court discovered between [Name 050], brother of [Name 016], and the accused ([Name 004]) is very relevant, as the latter was one of the persons credited with a preponderant role in drug trafficking, as set forth in facts 4.1, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, 4.36, and 4.37. In fact, in the tenth considering, letter A) of this resolution, this Criminal Sentencing Appeals Court unanimously dismissed the arguments made against the finding of guilt of ([Name 004]) as a co-perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking. When citing police report number IP-033-EN-19, the deciding body highlighted the link of [Name 050] with the defendants [Name 161] and ([Name 004]), managing to specify that the latter informed [Name 001] about the \"babies\" through [Name 004], based on report IP-320-EN-18, it having been demonstrated that said word corresponded to coded language for referring to packages of drugs – cocaine. Note how, little by little, and based on the analysis of evidence that was not solely two telephone calls, the court established the origin of the link of [Name 016] and her brother [Name 050] with the criminal organization, especially with the defendants [Name 001] and ([Name 004]). Now, the a quo refers to proven criminal acts of drug trafficking, based on report number IP-277-EN-19, which highlights that [Name 004] and his brother [Name 022] are active members of the criminal network together with their mother [Name 015], who were proven to have committed the acts of June 13, 2019, and November 21, 2019, both related to drug trafficking. It is relevant to add that, as developed in the judgment, [Name 050] was directly linked to [Name 004] on a date that is within the period of the charged acts, specifically May 16, 2019, when police surveillance corroborated that both defendants were together in the León XIII housing complex. The court assessed this based on report IP-261-EN-19. In addition, based on telephone traces, the link of [Name 050], brother of [Name 016], with other members of the criminal organization, known by their nicknames [Name 275] and [Name 075], was solidified. The contribution included in the ruling by the a quo, based on report IP-017-EN-20, is of great relevance, establishing that the leader of the criminal network, [Name 001], telephonically acknowledged his control over the activities of [Name 050], who in turn echoed that hierarchical relationship. To that end, the court transcribed the call containing the communication. The core of the charge on which ([Name 016]) was convicted revolves around the events of December 5 and 24, 2019, which, although they solely appear in intercepted calls during the investigation, were indeed validly credited. As has been indicated, what [Name 050] discussed with [Name 016] cannot be interpreted in isolation, but rather must be judged, as elaborated by the court, in light of the initial link of her brother [Name 050] with the criminal organization, the relationships between them under the leadership of [Name 001], as well as the materializations obtained from the convictions of [Name 001] and ([Name 004]). Thus, it is plainly evident that the events of December 5 and 24, 2019, can only be interpreted as drug trafficking actions by [Name 016] and her brother [Name 050], who were solely engaged in that during the investigation period, as proven in the judgment. Now, in the calls on those two dates in December 2019, it is clear that they discuss the storage and trafficking of drugs, because in addition it must be considered that the judicial body also directly linked [Name 016] with [Name 001], based on the analysis of another telephone communication, where she receives orders issued by [Name 001] through her, directed at her brother [Name 050], denoting that [Name 016] not only knows about the illicit business of drug trafficking, but actively participates together with her brother [Name 050]. Furthermore, the ruling also relies on testimonial evidence to complement the analysis, as it assessed the statement of investigator [Name 092], who, based on the facts known during the preliminary stage, determined that [Name 050] was indeed an active member of the criminal organization, giving as an example a \"tumbonazo\" that [Name 001] coordinated with [Name 050], and which was corroborated – materialized – by the San José Municipal Police, as on December 19, 2019, there was an incident where a person was approached by several subjects at a fake police checkpoint, which was precisely what [Name 050] planned telephonically with [Name 001]. As can be seen, the judgment links [Name 050] directly with [Name 001] executing actions typical of the criminal organization, in the same month as the two events for which [Name 016] was convicted, hence, as indicated, if [Name 050] was an active member of the network, he was linked to [Name 001], to [Name 004], and to ([Name 004]), it is clear that on December 5 and 24, 2019, when he coordinated with his sister [Name 016] by phone, it involved the illicit business of drug trafficking for which she was convicted. Therefore, my vote is to declare the second ground of the appeal by the private defense of the defendant ([Name 016]) without merit.-\n\nXXXI.\n\nThird objection in the appeal against judgment filed by Master Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense attorney for ([Nombre 016]). The appellant alleges erroneous application of Articles 69 and 83 through 92 of Ley 8204 of December 26, 2001. He argues that money laundering is an offense of connection or linkage with a prior criminal act, which must be attributed to a particular individual, but, furthermore, it is necessary that this individual \"has been tried and found responsible, with finality, for the crime (unless this has not been possible due to personal circumstances, grounds for exemption from punishment, in which case proof of the criminal wrong will suffice, provided this is not incompatible with the specific legislation of each country). Only when such direct imputation is not possible (whether because the perpetrator was not identified, because the perpetrator died, or because the criminal action was extinguished for certain reasons, excluding the statute of limitations for the criminal action), can such prior act be proven within the trial concerning money laundering\" (cf. f. 7321 vto.). He argues that while there are certainly modern trends that, instead of requiring the nexus with a serious predicate offense, deem the existence of \"criminal activity\" to be sufficient—thus making it possible for money laundering to be committed by the same perpetrator of the predicate offense—these are positions he considers erroneous because, in his view, they lead to an abusive application of the money laundering figure. The appellant argues that the willful intent necessary to prove the offense under analysis requires a prior conviction, so that the perpetrator knows the criminal origin of the money (cf. f. 7322 vto.). In this regard, he cites an excerpt from the work \"El Delito de Legitimación de Capitales\" by the national author Francisco Castillo. In addition to this, as established in numeral 3.c) i) of the Vienna Convention and numeral 6.1 b) of the Palermo Convention, the intent must be current, so that the acquisition of the asset, without knowing its illicit origin, equates to good faith and excludes the offense. He argues that, in this matter, it must be analyzed whether the kinship relationship existing between [Nombre 050] and the accused, or the sentimental relationship that once existed between her and [Nombre 001], as well as their child in common, are sufficient to prove the required cognitive element and the will to hide or conceal the origin of the assets. In this sense, the appellant points out that the court did not analyze the explanations and documentation provided by [Nombre 016] to justify how the questioned assets had been obtained, which would have made it possible to exclude the prosecution's hypothesis. He claims as a grievance that, had the evidentiary elements and the requirements established in the substantive law been correctly analyzed, reasonable doubt would have arisen and an acquittal would have been issued (cf. f. 7325).\n\nThe ground is declared without merit. The judgment found the following facts proven regarding the participation of the accused ([Nombre 016]): \"1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for receiving money from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: The storage and dosing of the drug shipments acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of the shipments to the various points of commercialization. The commercialization of drug shipments owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory. The commercialization of drug shipments owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug addicts, through properties that the organization held for \"Bunkers\" type purposes, as well as on public roads in the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking to employ various means for this purpose. 3. This drug trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal manner, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction: the commercialization of drugs and the group's safeguarding of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following [...] [Nombre 016]: member of the criminal structure, who among other functions assisted the accused [Nombre 050] in the tasks of storing drug shipments owned by the narco gang in her home, and was also another of the members whose role it was to facilitate the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in her name movable goods acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to make them available for the use and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group [...] 5.\n\nDuring the investigation period spanning from April 2018 through October 2020, the Criminal Organization comprised of the investigated individuals [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016], [Name 019], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, and transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001] […] 5.13 During the period spanning from January 2018 through October 2020, the charged individual identified as [Name 050], with the aim of inserting, diversifying, and layering the money derived from drug trafficking, recruited her sister, the accused ([Name 016]), for the purpose of having her serve as a front person (testaferro) to conceal the illicit origin of movable property, such as high-end vehicles, which were acquired by the criminal group with money derived from drug trafficking, an activity of which the accused ([Name 016]) maintained full knowledge. Among the vehicles registered in the accused's name are the following: A Volkswagen brand vehicle, Jetta MK6 style, license plate [Value 032], which holds a value of 9,022,000.00 (nine million twenty-two thousand colones); a BMW brand vehicle, X5 style, with a value of $37,930.00 (thirty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty dollars), money that was paid in cash at the agency Bavarian Motors CR S.A. by the accused on September 6, 2019; and a Ford brand vehicle, Ranger style, license plate [Value 034], valued at the sum of ¢15,000,000.00 (fifteen million colones) […] 6.13 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...] used by the accused [Name 016], the following result was obtained, and these items correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, blue with purple, with IMEIs 868139049562744 and IMEI 868139049586750, in fair condition, SIM card with a non-visible phone number. • A Huawei brand cell phone, gray, with no visible IMEI and a broken screen. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black, with IMEI 356017/07/356627/7, with its back broken. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gray, with IMEI 351712/10/099841/3 and IMEI 351713/10099841/1. • A total amount of cash in the sum of ¢3,321,000.00 (three million three hundred twenty-one thousand colones), and $60 (sixty dollars), money that was generated from the criminal activity of drug sales carried out by the accused ([Name 016]). • A Samsung brand cell phone, pink, with a broken screen, IMEI 3585518/08/872698/2 and IMEI 358517/08/872698/0. • A Samsung A10 brand cell phone, red, with IMEI 358100/10/833702/9. • A Huawei brand cell phone, model JKM-LX3, black, with two IMEI numbers, the first IMEI 866861049485004, the second IMEI 866861049520016, with a broken screen, in fair condition, with its 16GB Sandisk SD card, black, and Movistar SIM card serial 89506041010026535607. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, model JKM-LX3, with IMEI 865365042597741, with a black Adita brand 51)8613 card, with SIM card serial 8950604401712274511f, in fair condition. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, with two IMEIs, the first 865163044717965 and the second 865163044757979, in fair condition, with a white and red Claro SIM card with serial number 8950603018885859646F, without an SD card. • A non-lethal Glock-type 9mm pistol, serial 2016N061733, black, 35 gold-colored rounds with the legend Blazer 9mm Luger brand, two unfired 12-gauge rounds, Super X brand, Western. • A digital video recorder with serial number D63292428, white, with its respective power adapter\" (cf. folios 276 to 321 of the judgment). As is evident from the factual matrix transcribed and viewed in its entirety, the accused ([Name 016]) was attributed with having acted as a front person (testaferro) for the criminal group, specifically by consenting to the registration in her name of various movable assets acquired with money derived from drug trafficking activity.\n\nThe detail of the assets obtained in that manner was reconstructed in the judgment as follows: «[…] the profits from drug trafficking then allowed the accused [Name 016] to access the purchase of various vehicles which have been used in the commission of the crime, among them the BMW, X-5 model, license plate [Value 127], which here it should be clarified that in the charged facts the registration number was not indicated, but subsequently the prosecutorial body introduces that number, a circumstance that does not leave the accused defenseless since in the police reports and expert evidence she had been informed regarding that vehicle, make, characteristics and even the license plate number, so there is clarity that it was the same one; a vehicle that was registered in her name, which the court has corroborated is indeed the license plate that is definitively associated with said motor vehicle, since that vehicle was used by her brother, the co-defendant [Name 050], which was detailed in report IP-017-IP-EN-20, given that in a parallel case, identified with the unique number 23-000010-0515-PE (a proceeding being tried separately), a person identified with the name of [Name 053] was linked, in which an amount of money and jewelry was seized, with the dog used at that time testing positive for traces of drugs, a seizure that occurred when [Name 053] was traveling in the motor vehicle with license plate [Value 127], therefore said motor vehicle, according to the records seized and analyzed by the Money Laundering Section indicated in report 10-SLC-R-22 AMP I, CPA 15-21, was acquired at the company Bavarian Motors CR S.A., it registered as the buyer the co-defendant [Name 019], who paid an amount of ($40,000.00) forty thousand United States dollars, which is typical of ways to evade supervisory controls and thus conceal the rights held over the assets, since the vehicle is registered in the name of the accused [Name 016]; but also in report number Report No. 25-SLC-CI-20 C INV 63-19, regarding that same BMW, X5 model, year 2014, silver color, it has a contract value of USD $102,027.00, the cause of acquisition being for valuable consideration, with a registration date of September 6, 2019, and in public deed number one hundred forty-eight of the notaries public, Ana Rosa Soto Rivera, Jorge Javier León Longhi, and Bernardo Gómez Salgado, at 11:15 a.m. on August thirtieth, two thousand nineteen, it indicates that [Name 276], identity card [Value 156], an accountant, unlimited general power of attorney of the corporation Bavarian Motors CR Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number 3-101-5021521, and [Name 016], identity card [Value 006], a merchant, in which act the first appearing party sold to the second appearing party, who accepts, a B.M.W. brand automobile, X5, year two thousand fourteen, for the sum of thirty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty dollars (USD $37,930.00), paid in this same act at the cashier's desk of the BMW agency, data that appear in the digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 203] issued by the National Registry; the same circumstance occurs with the Volkswagen brand vehicle, license plate [Value 032], with report No. 25-SLC-CI-20, C INV 63-19, in which it is being reported that, through digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 204], it has a contract value of ¢18,700,000.00 (eighteen million, seven hundred thousand colones), so the cause of acquisition is for valuable consideration, with a registration date of July 30, 2019, and in public deed number one hundred sixteen of the notary public, Víctor Sánchez Céspedes, at 10:00 a.m. on July nineteenth, two thousand nineteen, it indicates that the corporation Purdy Motor Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number 3-101-005744, sold said motor vehicle to the accused [Name 016], for the sum of nine million twenty-two thousand colones (¢9,022,000.00); which is repeated regarding the Ford brand vehicle, Ranger model, circulation license plate [Value 034], year 2017, orange color, whose acquisition was analyzed in the same report referred to above, so according to digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 205], it indicates that the cause of acquisition was for valuable consideration, with a registration date of March 4, 2020, and in public deed number two hundred sixty-one, of the notary public, Alejandra Villalobos Meléndez, it is indicated that [Name 277], identity card [Value 157], a merchant, unlimited general power of attorney of the corporation Danelo D E Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number [Value 206], sold said motor vehicle to the accused [Name 016], stating on that occasion she was a merchant, paying for that motor vehicle the sum of fifteen million colones (₡15,000,000.00); in addition to these vehicles that are indicated in the accusatory pleading, the Money Laundering Section detailed others, among them the following: Vehicle with plates [Value 158], a Toyota Yaris E brand vehicle, registered in the name of [Name 016], on April 22, 2019, sold by Agencia Datsun S.A., it was indicated that the origin of the funds paid was the own funds of Mr. [Name 278], identity card [Value 159], who paid by deposit from Banco Bac San José, on March 26, 2019, the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS (USD $12,261.00), and who authorized the registration of the asset in the name of ([Name 016])\n\nso if we look between the year 2019 and 2020, the accused acquired four vehicles in her name, an unusual circumstance in the commercial dynamics of a person linked to drug trafficking activities, but even in Report No. 10-SLC-R-22 AMP I C PA 15-21, in table number 11, it is indicated that the accused ([Name 016]), in the period from April 3, 2018, to October 5, 2020, at the car sales agency identified as [Name 292], made the purchase of eleven vehicles, an unmistakable sign that the accused was engaged in this dynamic which corresponds to the figure of a front person (testaferro), since she lent her name for the acquisition of vehicles and thereby the concealment of asset rights, with money originating from drug trafficking\" [sic] (cfr.\n\nfs. 868 to 870 of the judgment). Regarding this evidentiary construction, the technical defense raised no objection. In any case, this Chamber observes that the judgment takes up the documentary evidence added to the case file to determine how the vehicle purchases were made, who was in charge of the payments, and the identity of the person who appeared as the registered owner, who is precisely the defendant ([Nombre 016]), without any inconsistency or error being verified in the analysis carried out. Now, the defense's divergence focuses on the fact that, in its opinion, it is not possible to establish that the money with which the assets were acquired originated from drug trafficking activity. On this point, this Chamber considers that the judgment makes an adequate approach, since it was established that the money came from drug trafficking activity and not from licit sources as the defense sought to prove. Note that the *a quo* links the defendant to the criminal activities carried out by her brother [Nombre 050], who is pending trial, but the truth is that the clearest connection presented is with [Nombre 001], the leader of the criminal organization. Thus, between that subject and the defendant ([Nombre 016]), there is the antecedent that they were romantic partners in the past and even had a child together, a situation that facilitated the defendant's approach to the criminal activities benefiting the first. And beyond that prior relationship, there is evidence that the aforementioned individuals maintained contact during the investigation period and that there were even coordinations between the two related precisely to the acquisition and registration of movable assets in the name of ([Nombre 016]). In that sense, the judgment highlights: \"*it is important to establish that said person, for a long time, has maintained* 4 of March 2020, therefore *a close relationship with [Nombre 001] since, as is known, they have a child together, however, beyond this relationship regarding their child, throughout the investigation it was established by the judicial police that [Nombre 016] maintained a relationship linked to criminal activities with [Nombre 001], the court even heard communications alluding to personal circumstances in which [Nombre 001] dialogued with [Nombre 016], but from them, it was denoted that she received money for personal matters and also for the acquisition of vehicles, an example of this is the following communication located in Volume V of the Case File of Transcriptions of the telephone interception: FTP Listening Record #155, folio 1347, from minute 00:02:35 to minute 00:03:07: '[Nombre 001] said - what do I do, do I send you that money, with whom? [Nombre 016] said - well I don't know, send it to me with anyone, [Nombre 001] said - but right now? [Nombre 016] said - well yes, [Nombre 001] said okay- give me a moment, [Nombre 016] said - okay and send me the car papers, [Nombre 001] said - but that's it, it's already in your name, you can just check the plate to see, [Nombre 016] said - okay -[Nombre 001] said- you don't even need the papers because it's not necessary since by just looking up the plate it comes up in your name, -[Nombre 016] said well but if I were to sell it or something they ask for them -[Nombre 001] said - oh no you don't need them, you just need the car to be in your name and for it to be free' (...), from this communication it is clear that [Nombre 001] maintained a dynamic of acquiring a vehicle, with [Nombre 016] being the one who, regarding her criminal participation, gave her name for the vehicle to be registered, thus concealing the rights to the asset, diverting attention and distracting the authorities from the true person who provided the money for the purchase, thereby causing a distortion of the socioeconomic order, because control over individuals' assets is lost*\" (cf. fs. 861 to 859 of the judgment). The previous communication, held between [Nombre 001] and ([Nombre 016]) —who is identified by her second name [Nombre 016]— corresponds to sequence 0261339, from April 4, 2019, which is prior to the acquisition of the movable assets alluded to in the accusation and judgment, since the Volkswagen vehicle, plate [Valor 047], was acquired on July 30, 2019; the BMW, plate [Valor 033], on September 6, 2019; and the Ford, plate [Valor 160], on March 4, 2020, so it cannot be directly related to any of these assets. However, the *a quo* rightly assesses that within the investigation period, the defendant was linked to the acquisition of at least eleven vehicles, which is an evident sample of a sustained mode of operating over time, in which the transcribed conversation makes complete sense, where [Nombre 001] informs ([Nombre 016]) that a vehicle is already registered in her name. On the other hand, regarding the BMW vehicle, model X-5, plate [Valor 161], several circumstances described in the judgment arise that must be revisited. The first is that, even though it appears registered in the name of the defendant ([Nombre 016]), the person who made arrangements at the agency Bavarian Motors CR. S.A. for its purchase was [Nombre 019]. As part of the comprehensive review of the summary proceedings, it could be verified that in the name of said subject appear various payment receipts in dollars and colones issued by the agency, which in turn are linked to cash deposit slips in dollars and colones, generated by various banking entities (cf. fs. 290 to 306 of the evidence case file). This fact is highly relevant because the defendant ([Nombre 019]) was linked in this same process to the acquisition of the Toyota vehicle, model Land Cruiser Prado TX-L, license plate [Valor 125], valued at ¢44,272,000.00, with money coming from drug trafficking. Thus, it was recorded in proven fact 5.6 and in the section identified \"*Facts related to [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 019]*\", visible from folio 835 to 860 of the judgment —reference is made for its reading to considerando XXVIII—. It is clear then that, although the vehicle is registered in the defendant's name, some payments were made by a third party, who in turn is linked to the acquisition of movable assets with money coming from drug trafficking, which constitutes an evident parallelism that adds to the accreditation of the illicit origin of the money with which vehicle plate [Valor 033] was acquired. Furthermore, during the investigation it could be established that the asset was used by her brother [Nombre 050], but also by another person identified as [Nombre 053], who was caught by the authorities while transporting ₡1,902,600 in cash and various pieces of jewelry in the vehicle. Additionally, during the inspection of the vehicle, a field test was performed that tested positive for drugs, suggesting that the asset was used to transport illicit substances. The description of [Nombre 053]'s conduct is recorded in the proven facts of the judgment from point 4.42 to 4.45. In addition to what has already been stated, and even though it was not included in the prosecutorial charges, the *a quo* determined, based on the evidence produced at trial, that the Toyota vehicle, plate [Valor 158], was also registered during the investigation period in the name of ([Nombre 016]). On this aspect, the judgment states: \"[…] *in addition to these vehicles that are indicated in the accusatory document, the section on money laundering (legitimación de capitales) detailed others, among them the following, Vehicle plates [Valor 158], a Toyota Yaris E vehicle, registered in the name of [Nombre 016], on April 22, 2019, sold by Agencia Datsun S.A., it was indicated that the origin of the funds paid was the own funds of Mr. [Nombre 278], identity card [Valor 159], who paid by deposit from Banco Bac San José, on March 26, 2019, the amount of TWELVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY-ONE DOLLARS (USD $12,261.00), and who authorized the registration of the asset in the name of ( [Nombre 016])\"* (cf. f. 870 of the judgment). Regarding this last vehicle, the investigation allowed determining that it was used by [Nombre 268], alias \"[Nombre 269]\", who was linked to retail drug trafficking activity in criminal case No. 19-000160-062-PE.\n\nFrom the foregoing, it follows then that at least two vehicles registered in the name of the defendant [Nombre 016] during the investigation period were paid for by third parties, one of them accused and convicted of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) as a result of acquiring another vehicle through the same method, and another that was used by a person linked to drug trafficking.\n\nA clear and evident pattern can thus be deduced that the accused was only the registered owner of the assets, but the use and enjoyment of the movable property was carried out by third parties, which aligns with the role of front person attributed to her by the prosecution. In addition to the foregoing circumstances, the judgment also analyzes that the accused ([Nombre 016]) was in contact with the handling of significant amounts of money that, in turn, were related to her brother [Nombre 050], namely: «[…] *along this same line of argument we see how [Nombre 016] maintained a link with the leader of the organization and her brother, in drug trafficking actions and the safeguarding of money, another example is the following communication:* **From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0137789. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of telephone service [Valor 162]. This call was made at 8:28 p.m., on September 13, 2019.** [Nombre 050] *alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with a subject. [Nombre 065] said – [Nombre 280]. Subject said – Hello. [Nombre 065] said-* *Why don't you tell [Nombre 016] to pick up some money for me there at [Nombre 026]’s place, she sent it down there without counting it. Subject said – Well, I'll tell her to count it. [Nombre 065] said – Yeah, just have her put it away. Subject said – Okay.(…), as we can see from the previous communication, it is clearly about money that comes from drug trafficking actions and it is the accused [Nombre 016] who participated in that criminal organization contributing to the success of that activity* […] *in the following communication we observe how [Nombre 050] entrusts to [Nombre 016] what can be established as referring to some merchandise or money, it was indicated thus:* **From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0102661. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of telephone service** [Valor 105]**. This call was made at 2:29 p.m. on January 26, 2020** [Nombre 050] *alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with a female identified by the name of [Nombre 016], user of telephone line [Valor 105]. [Nombre 016] said – Well, I'm here, oh okay. [Nombre 065] said – Ah okay, you are at the edge, close the gate. [Nombre 016] said – Yes, okay. [Nombre 065] said – Listen, let no one know anything about this, not even [Nombre 026], not how much it is or anything, because no one knows I have that. [Nombre 016] said – No. [Nombre 065] said – Okay”. In the following communication they continue referring regarding [Nombre 016]:* **From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0102953. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of telephone service** [Valor 163]**. This call was made at 3:48 a.m. on January 27, 2020. “**[Nombre 050] *alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with an unidentified subject, user of telephone line [Valor 163]. Subject said – Hello. [Nombre 065] said – Playo. Subject said – Mjm. [Nombre 065] said – eh, you took the money, [Nombre 281]’s. Subject said – No, nothing. [Nombre 065] said – No, it's just that I, how strange. Subject said – Your sister has that, right. [Nombre 065] said – Just the grey bag. Subject said – Mjm. [Nombre 065] said – No, it's just that it's the grey bag with money. Subject said – No papi. [Nombre 065] said – In your room, right. Subject said – No. [Nombre 065] said – I'm going to check” (...), in the following communication the relationship with this communication and [Nombre 016] is detailed, let's see:* **From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0102966. The intercepted telephone line communicates with the user of telephone service** [Valor 105]**. This call was made at 4:53 a.m. on January 27, 2020.** [Nombre 050] *alias “[Nombre 065]” spoke with a female identified by the name of [Nombre 016], user of telephone line [Valor 105]. Outside the phone, [Nombre 065] said – It doesn't matter I'll get guns, but he loses his life, that son of a bitch never answered. [Nombre 016] said – What. [Nombre 065] said – Mae, come to the house so you can check the cameras for a bit. [Nombre 016] said – So you can check them. [Nombre 065] said – Yes mae, don't you see I had five palos there and they were stolen from me. [Nombre 016] said – [Nombre 184] was carrying a yellow bag, didn't you send him to put it away at [Nombre 184]’s place. [Nombre 065] said – No, it was another thing. [Nombre 016] said – Mae, he didn't throw them in a bag, or anything. [Nombre 065] said – No, I already searched the house. [Nombre 016] said – Ah, I'm on my way.”,(…), it is therefore clear to identify, how [Nombre 016] was very trusted by her brother, to the point of having to corroborate a theft of money (“five palos”, a common term in Costa Rican Spanish to refer to millions), in this case five million, that belonged to the criminal organization, that reveals as we have been stating, the participation of the accused [Nombre 016] with the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001] […]» [sic] (cf. fs. 862 to 863, 866 to 867 of the judgment). Even during the raid carried out on her home, a significant sum of cash was seized, specifically ₡3,321,000.00, which then corroborates that in the previous communications they were indeed talking about money and not about an object of another nature. The foregoing is relevant because the defense questions that the money held by the accused has a lawful origin, specifically in the manufacture and commercialization of tortillas; however, these communications reveal that it was through her brother that she had access to large amounts of cash and not from the commercial activity alluded to.\n\nIn the case of [Name 050], material evidence was even obtained that links him to drug trafficking activity, to the handling of significant sums of money, and to the possession of high-value assets, given that in the search (allanamiento) carried out on October 13, 2020, at his residence located in [...] north sector, third house on the right, one story, black gates, evidence indicative of said activity was seized, specifically seventeen vacuum-sealed transparent plastic wrappers with marijuana-type drugs; in addition to other supplies related to drug dosage measurement, among them three electronic scales, packages, and rolls of bags. Also found were ₡1,808,500.00, a BMW vehicle, X5 model, year 2004, license plate [Value 049], valued at ₡37,307,660.00; a Toyota vehicle, Fortuner model, circulation license plate [Value 050], valued at $66,131.00 (cf. p. 3779 of the main case file). It is worth noting that the second of these vehicles was acquired through the intermediation of [Name 030] (cf. p. 181 of the judgment), who was attributed with one of his functions being the locating of front men (testaferros) for the criminal organization, to register in their name vehicles that were acquired to be placed at the disposal of the criminal organization, which thus reveals the dynamic and modus operandi of the organization with respect to the acquisition and use of assets. On the other hand, the judgment referenced various telephone communications in which it is evident that both ([Name 016]) and her brother remained alert to police presence or action, which is consistent with the illegality and clandestine nature of the actions they were carrying out: “From [Value 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0126694. The intervened telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Value 164]. This call was made at 06:03 hours, on September 4, 2019. [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” spoke with an unidentified male subject. Subject said – Aja papi. [Name 065] said – Alo. Subject said – Aja papi. [Name 065] said – Dígamela. Subject said – Mae este en todas porque este, un cuadrillon hay abajo. [Name 065] said – La bestia y todo. Subject said – Si. [Name 065] said – Conoce. Subject said – Van para abajo, este en todas, oyó. (…); following communication: From [Value 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0126696. The intervened telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Value 155]. This call was made at 06:08 hours, on September 4, 2019. [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” spoke with an unidentified female. Female said – Alo, alo. [Name 065] said – Alo. Female said – Que pasó hijo. [Name 065] said – A donde está. Female said – Aquí en la casa. [Name 065] said – Porque no le dice a [Name 284] que venga por una ropa. Female said – Papi esta todo el orga ahí, oyó. [Name 065] said – Si, ya (unintelligible) Female said – Donde [Name 033]. [Name 065] said – Donde cual [Name 033]. Female said – La del gordo. [Name 065] said – Aja. Female said – Donde [Name 283]. [Name 065] said – Bueno. Female said Ya le digo a [Name 284], [Name 284] que vaya por ropa (This she said to a male subject heard in the background.) [Name 065] said – Pero no les botaron a ellos. Female said – Ya sube ya sube. [Name 065] said Bueno.(…) from the context of the previous communications we see that [Name 050] is alerting other people about the arrival of the police and some type of operation or incursion, since he mentions “a la bestia” (as the judicial police's tactical or armored vehicle is known), indicating that it is necessary to “recojan la ropa”, terms associated with referring to narcotics, which means it is impossible to understand that someone would worry about the arrival of the police in a sweep looking for “clothing”, however, next we see how the accused [Name 016] on another occasion called her brother [Name 050] concerned about the police presence and tells him: From [Value 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0141611. The intervened telephone line communicates with the user of the telephone service [Value 105]. This call was made at 21:45 hours, on September 16, 2019. [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]“ spoke with a female who identified herself with the name of [Name 016]. [Name 050] said – Aja. [Name 016] said - Alo. [Name 050] said – Dígame. [Name 016] said – Por donde viene. [Name 050] said – Porqué. [Name 016] said – Ah porque por aquí por donde, de acueductos para abajito hay una Yaris negra al lado y un Tiida abajo el otro. [Name 050] said – OIJ o la chusma. [Name 016] said – Es que no se si es OIJ o la chusma, no se están raros, hay una para arriba y una para abajo, parqueados de acueductos para abajo, en la oscuridad. [Name 050] said– Ah bueno voy para Escazú. [Name 016] said – Bueno.\n\n[Nombre 050] said–Alright.(…) which denotes that [Nombre 016] was indeed worried about the presence of the police and above all about what would happen to her brother, which is far from a person who has no relationship with drug trafficking or irregular activity, but that as analyzed in the section on the determination of that extreme, [Nombre 016] became fully involved in those activities, which is a reflection of her interaction between her, [Nombre 001], and her brother” [sic] (cfr. fs. 863 to 864 of the judgment). Clearly, an ordinary citizen, who adjusts their conduct to legality, would not present this level of alertness upon denoting that there is some ongoing police action around them. In this case, the indicted persons show concern, precisely because on their part actions are being carried out outside the law and therefore there is a fear of being discovered. It is important to highlight that the majority of this Chamber already pointed out that, regarding the activities inherent to drug trafficking, the analysis of the a quo was not conclusive regarding ([Nombre 016]); however, the transcribed communications are indeed relevant to contribute to the fact that ([Nombre 016]) acted with full knowledge and will of the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal organization led by her former romantic partner, hence her concern about the police presence in the vicinity of the area where she and her brother were. It is added to the foregoing that the defendant maintained telephone contact with [Nombre 001] even to receive orders from him and make them known to other members of the organization, which the judgment details as follows: “if we see in the following communication that interrelation occurs: From [Valor 165]. Call identified with sequence number 0259988. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone line [Valor 105]. This call was made at 09:45 hours on March 10, 2019. [Nombre 001] called [Nombre 016], from minute 00:00:43 to minute 00:00:55 I mention the following: [Nombre 001] said – tell [Nombre 004] [Nombre 124] not to let him go, right, they are arriving right now, [Nombre 016] said - did [Nombre 004] already come?, [Nombre 001] said – no they are arriving right now, but he and [Nombre 123] are in charge of watching over them. The conversation ends.” (…) if we see [Nombre 001] refers to her regarding the brothers [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022], two of the accused of greatest trust of [Nombre 001] and [Nombre 016] maintained that knowledge and direct relationship regarding them; in the same sense the following communication is denoted: From [Valor 097]. Call identified with sequence number 0218707. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 105]. This call was made at 17:45 hours on February 05, 2020. Sequence number System date and time 0218707 02/05/2020 05:45:23 p.m. [Nombre 001] alias “[Nombre 084]” made a call to [Nombre 016], user of telephone line [Valor 105]. [Nombre 016] said -hello, [Nombre 001] said -[Nombre 016] why don't you do me an urgent favor, why don't you tell “[Nombre 065]” to answer [Nombre 099], but urgent, urgent urgent, [Nombre 016] said -okay I'm going, [Nombre 001] said -for fa”(..); this communication makes even more sense with the following call: From [Valor 137]. Call identified with sequence number 0103801. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 138]. This call was made at 22:03 hours on January 27, 2020 [Nombre 050] alias “[Nombre 065]” received a call from an unidentified female, user of telephone line [Valor 138]. From second 00:00:56, [Nombre 065] said – I'll check right now to see if I have some dollars there, it's that [Nombre 099] has to give me a thousand dollars” (cfr. fs. 864 to 865 of the judgment).\n\nFinally, the trial court’s ruling also detailed that the defendant ([Nombre 016]) did not present a licit source of funds to justify the acquisition of so many movable assets in such a short period, especially since some of these had high market values: «[…] having analyzed the economic profile of the convicted [Nombre 016] by the experts of the Capital Legitimization Section, which established that she was not a contributor to the C.C.S.S., on the Ministry of Finance website, specifically in the Taxpayer Identification System “SIC,” it was established that the accused here does not present nor has presented records of economic activities or tax obligations; furthermore, as part of the inquiries conducted, it was consulted whether she appears registered as an employer, and it was found that she does not appear registered as such and does not register any corporate participations (see point 5.15.1 of Report No. 25-SLC-CI-20 C INV 63-19); this means her financial profile is nonexistent to provide an explanation of the economic capacity to afford the purchase of that large quantity of assets […] to which is added the statement by the investigator of the Capital Legitimization Section [Nombre 225], who indicated: “[Nombre 016] is a relative of [Nombre 050], one of the high-ranking persons according to the narcotics section, a profile of the person was prepared, she had the highest amount of circumstantial evidence for capital legitimization due to the acquisition of assets in a short time, according to the purchase and sale deeds, there was data that large cash payments were being made, likewise the asset growth she maintained, one real estate property and 6 movable assets, 4 acquired during the investigation period, by the way these assets were documented in the police reports regarding the use by both her brother and by other members of the organization, she did not present economic activity in the Ministry of Finance nor salaried contributions in the CCSS” (…), these statements are joined by those of the judicial expert Elizabeth Segura González, who indicated: “regarding [Nombre 016], it is determined that she is used as a front person (testaferro), which is a methodology used in capital legitimization, the acquisition of assets is made, her as the owner, however based on the police reports it is determined that the use and enjoyment of the asset is not exercised by [Nombre 016], on the other hand, it is observed that amounts of money are paid mostly in cash and settling the asset payments in their entirety, it is for this reason that one determines that person as a front person (testaferro) figure before the organization” (…), all of which from the aforementioned statements demonstrates what the documentary evidence has been detailing, that in effect the accused ([Nombre 016]) was a fundamental link in the criminal structure of [Nombre 001], in support of her brother [Nombre 050] (who is being prosecuted in a separate case), lending her name for the acquisition of assets and placing them at the organization’s disposal, thereby distorting the socioeconomic order with her actions, as the expert Elizabeth Segura stated emphatically in the debate at the end of her testimony: “regarding [Nombre 016], she is given the figure of a front person (testaferro), she registered as the owner of several assets, making payments for the same, cash payments and transactions, and not being the one who used the assets» [sic] (cfr. fs. 871 to 873). The sum of all the elements indicated and which were set forth by the trial court in its ruling, in the opinion of this Chamber leads to a single possible conclusion, specifically that the defendant ([Nombre 016]) was in collusion with [Nombre 001], as the leader of the criminal organization, and with her brother [Nombre 007], in activities constituting capital legitimization, by lending herself to the registration in her name of high-value movable assets, acquired with money stemming from drug trafficking. Given the conclusiveness of the incriminating evidence, it is feasible to displace the defense theory, according to which the assets acquired by the defendant originate from a licit remunerative activity consisting of the manufacturing and sale of tortillas. Even admitting that this is a licit source of income for the defendant, the analysis carried out by the trial court on the origin of the money used to acquire the vehicles for which she was accused is not weakened. The trial court points out the following: «[…] although the exculpatory witness Mr. [Nombre 285], identification card [Valor 166], appeared in the debate and stated: “I know [Nombre 016] because I work in a car dealership, she has been a client for about 25 years, the car dealership is called [Nombre 292] and is located in San Sebastián, the first cars she bought were cars around one million three hundred or one million seven hundred, a down payment of about seven hundred and the rest financed, then she would give the car she was trading in as a down payment and the rest financed, we always place a lien on the vehicle in favor of [Nombre 292], when we received a vehicle in some cases if they are put in the name of Mr. [Nombre 292], if the client is trustworthy a power of attorney was made, with [Nombre 016], normally the vehicles we sold her, in some cases we received a power of attorney from her, normally it was she who made the payments. PUBLIC MINISTRY. The requirements we ask for when we finance a vehicle are a photocopy of the ID card and the car goes with a lien, as she has always been a good client, I do not know what she does for a living.(…), his contribution was not of the magnitude expected by the defense since it only served to ratify the same findings of the capital legitimization section's expert reports, which link [Nombre 016] to the purchase of a large number of vehicles, and it even suggests to us that in that negotiation, no major requirement was needed other than the buyer's identification card and the lien was constituted on the same vehicle, without the buyer having to provide reasonable justification for economic backing (credit subject), and thus the economic aim of the sales agency was not frustrated, which does not correspond to the rules of logic and experience in that type of contract […]» (cfr. fs. 869 to 870 of the judgment). As the trial court well detailed, the exculpatory evidence actually allowed for the verification of that pattern of constant vehicle acquisition by the defendant over time, without her having an economic profile that would allow it. The judgment was clear in detailing that only two of the defendants had records of licit remunerative activities, but not ([Nombre 016]), so there is no justification found that she could acquire assets of high economic value. On the other hand, the investigation carried out by the judicial police, which extended for more than two years, also did not allow documenting that the defendant carried out licit remunerative activities that would provide her with a cash flow with which she could acquire the assets in question. The trial court's analysis of the exculpatory evidence concludes with the following reference to the defendant's statement: «[…] however, despite the conclusiveness of the evidence referred to above, the court analyzed what was said by the accused in the exercise of her material defense, who tried to justify that her income came from her own activity, when she declared: “I want to reject the charges and clarify what I am being accused of, the only relationship I have with [Nombre 001] is a son who is going to turn 20, he has always been responsible, he helps me with the payments, the school through deposits, the cars I have acquired I have acquired them at a dealership, financed, I have been buying cars there for 20 years, regarding the money they found when they raided us, it is from a business we have, days before we had acquired the dough products, the lady who came to testify did not say that the 40 bags of dough were found at my house, here I have the invoices from before and after the raid, I want to ask you to present Mr. [Nombre 285], he is from the dealership where I buy the cars, maybe he can give you a better explanation of how I acquired the cars. LIC. VICTOR OBANDO.\n\nIt is a family business of homemade tortillas, my stepfather and I, my mother's brother-in-law participate, we have had the business for more than eight years, if I wish to offer the invoices as proof, [Name 001] sent me the money for the school, it was paid by bank deposits, he sent me the money with some young man and I took care of making the deposit, the vehicle deals were done at the [Name 292] agency, I offer this as a witness, I also had another car that was not bought there, but the gentleman died, when I sold it I bought another car, I had some money saved, later I went to an agency in Pavas and they gave me a Ford, they took it to a workshop but there was a shootout and it was detained\", (...), the court considers that indeed the accused could maintain a production and sale activity of tortillas, which even as is common is family-run and outside of commercial legality, however, we have not observed in the file any relationship of that activity with the findings of economic capacity for the purchase of the vehicles and the payments that the defendant made, in other words, there is no way to justify that as a product of the sale of tortillas one could afford in two years the purchase of eleven vehicles at the [Name 292] agency and the other three that are indicated in the accusatory piece, that is, in a period of approximately two years she acquired 14 vehicles, this does not correspond with logic, which is added to the fact that many of these vehicles were in use by the criminal organization, in addition to the fact that the financial profile of the accused ([Name 016]) demonstrates another reality, if we see, she only possesses account [Value 188] of the Banco Nacional in which she registered a total income of TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED NINETY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT COLONES WITH 43/100 (₡2,399,548.43) whose main item is \"Cash Deposits\" for a total amount of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTEEN COLONES (₡1,104,715.00), which was established in Table No. 19, point 5.1.11.2 regarding financial products of the accused, from report No. 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21, prepared by the expert Rodrigo Chaves Calvo, even these findings do not justify the excessive asset increase for the purchase of that quantity of vehicles, which would come to raise the respective questions, how and where do those resources come from, that if they were from the tortilla sales activity, it would have to be on the basis of a consolidated business, with ample logistics capacity in that type of products, with personnel in charge, a fleet of vehicles, suitable physical space for mass production, that would allow the payment of raw material products and salary expenses among others, but that additionally, said business would then allow it with the fruit of those earnings the purchase of these goods, all of which finds no logical justification, but furthermore no evidence was presented that would demonstrate it, beyond the invoices for the purchase of a small quantity of raw material for the elaboration of the tortillas, which gives the court the impression, rather corresponds to a small undertaking and not to the solidity or capacity for the acquisition of that quantity of goods, the truth is that it does not agree with the circumstances in the acquisition of the goods with high amounts of money and that according to logic and the rules of experience, her statement is not sustained, since the evidence against her is overwhelming and reflects that she remained linked to a criminal enterprise dedicated to drug trafficking and the material object of that figure is constituted precisely by the goods, hence for the particular case the accused could not shatter the evidentiary elements that point to her directly, that it is she who put her name for the purchase of goods during the time for the criminal organization and its use, all of which for the court has been absolutely overwhelming and therefore with certainty it has been confirmed that [Name 016], is a co-perpetrator responsible for a crime of Money Laundering\" [sic] (cf. pages 873 to 875 of the judgment). From the foregoing it is deduced then that the trial court assessed the defense evidence and indicated in a reasoned manner the reasons why it did not give rise to the emergence of a doubt in favor of the accused. Regarding what was indicated, this Chamber does not verify any error or deficiency, since it is consistent with all the evidentiary material presented at trial, viewed jointly, which does not allow reaching any other reasonable conclusion other than the establishment of criminal responsibility of the defendant ([Name 016]) for the acts constituting money laundering. Having clear all the foregoing account, with which the few procedural aspects referred to by the judgment in its claim are discarded, it remains to hear the substantive aspect invoked and which corresponds to the necessity or not that the predicate offense, in this case drug trafficking, has a final judgment. The wording of Article 69 of Law No. 8204 in force at the time of the accused and accredited acts, established: \"Shall be punished with a prison term of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts or transmits goods of economic interest, knowing that they originate from a crime that, within its range of penalties, can be punished with a prison term of four (4) years or more, or carries out any other act to conceal or cover up the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever conceals or covers up the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement or rights over the goods or their ownership, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its range of penalties can be punished with a prison term of four (4) years or more. The penalty shall be ten (10) to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, when the goods of economic interest originate from any of the crimes related to the illicit trafficking of narcotics, psychotropic substances, money laundering, diversion of precursors, essential chemical substances and related crimes, conducts classified as terrorist, in accordance with current legislation or when the purpose is the financing of acts of terrorism and terrorist organizations\". For this crime to be configured, an illicit activity must previously be carried out that generates the money, goods or other type of values to be laundered. In the Costa Rican case, the legislator did not indicate particular illicit acts as predicates of money laundering, but rather opted for a generic formula, according to which it can be any crime that, within its ranges, contemplates a prison term of four years or more, that is, it must be a serious crime (see Articles 1 in fine of Law No. 8754 and 2.b of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime). Despite the foregoing, this illicit act contains its own material wrong that is independent of the predicate illicit activity and therefore it is contemplated as an autonomous criminal type, hence its punishability does not depend on whether the perpetrator or participant in the predicate offense has been punished. On this matter, this Court makes its own the criterion expressed by the Third Chamber in Resolution No. 2016-00808, at 09:58 hours on August 5, 2016, in which it indicated: \"V. [...] Effectively, this Chamber shares the criterion of the appealed judgment, insofar as the objective element of money laundering requires that the goods come from a prior crime (punishable by four or more years of imprisonment); but it does not require a prior criminal conviction (folio 6196 back).\n\nThat is, the verification of a prior unlawful act (acción ilícita) that gives rise to said assets is required, but this can be done in the very judgment that tries the money laundering (legitimación de capitales). This being so, by verifying therein the existence of that serious crime (understood as one punishable by four or more years of imprisonment) and its generative link with the assets, the objective elements of Article 69, transcribed above, are fully satisfied […]» (emphasis supplied). In the case before us, as has been noted, the a quo correctly held that it was proven that the criminal organization subjected to prosecution had as its principal activity drug trafficking, which was conducted on a medium scale, through supply to other criminal organizations for distribution to third parties. For the aforementioned unlawful act, criminal liability was declared against [Name 029], who was in charge of transporting and delivering the shipments, which generated an economic consideration of approximately ₡5,100,000 per kilogram of cocaine, which constitutes the source of the illicit capital of the organization. Criminal liability for said criminal activity was also declared against [Name 001], who acted as the leader of the structure and, therefore, is the architect of all criminal activity. By virtue of the foregoing, in the opinion of this Court, the a quo properly established the existence of the preceding unlawful act in this very matter, from which the illicit capital that other defendants, among them ([Name 016]), were responsible for laundering, derives. Based on the considerations set forth, it is determined that the defects claimed by the appellant are not present, and for that reason, it is appropriate to declare without merit (sin lugar) the third ground of appeal raised by Master Manuel Soto Aguilar, in favor of the accused ([Name 016]).\n\n**32. Fifth ground of the challenge filed by Master Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense counsel for ([Name 016]).** He alleges «Erroneous legal-intellectual reasoning in setting the penalty (sanción)». Technical defense counsel alleges disregard of Article 71 of the Criminal Code and section 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which resulted in a lack of reasoning of the judgment regarding the imposition of the criminal penalty. In support, he cites ruling No. 315-2021 of April 15, 2021, from the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. He argues that, although the penalty imposed does not depart from the minimum imposable term, this circumstance did not exempt the a quo from properly justifying that penalty, in the terms indicated in section 142 of the procedural code. He indicates that the reasoning for the penalty in this case was «meager», since it is limited to referring to the size of the criminal organization and its operation for at least 30 months. The court does not mention, however, the resocializing purpose of the punishment and instead makes a reference, which he deems incomprehensible, to the «degree» of culpability. He adds that, specifically, regarding ([Name 016]), she is reproached for the large number of high-economic-value vehicles she acquired, as she is considered a front person (testaferro) for the organization (cf. p. 7336 front). She is also reproached for lending her home for drug storage and for having followed her brother’s steps by joining the criminal organization. However, Master Soto Aguilar notes the absence of consideration of the accused’s condition as head of household, who alone faces the upbringing of three minor children and another aged 19 who depends economically on her. After another extensive jurisprudential citation (whose identification is not referenced in the appeal), the appellant states that the penalty «is completely detached from the basic reasoning that must be attended to by legal mandate at the moment of its imposition; the judges were content with sketching out a light and vague wording riddled with routine phrases» (p. 7339 rev.). **The ground is granted.** Due to the remand ordered for a new hearing of the facts related to drug trafficking, it is decided by majority that no ruling on the penalty for said criminal activity is appropriate. With respect to the penalty of 10 years of imprisonment established for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), it is observed that it corresponds to the minimum provided for the crime of drug trafficking. By virtue of the foregoing, even though the reasoning set forth to support the penalty is extremely limited and does not fully encompass all the aspects described in section 71 of the Criminal Code, such that in principle no grievance would be caused to the defendant, the truth is that the appeal alludes to alleged conditions of vulnerability that the accused presents and that were not evaluated. Indeed, the judgment does not make any approach to said circumstance, even when the Social Work and Psychology report number NUE 23-000453-0725-TS, concerning the accused [Name 016], appended at folios 4565 to 4569, volume IX, of the investigative file, offered for those purposes, is included as admitted evidence. The omission detected could not be substituted by this Court, because it involves the evaluation of an evidentiary element in a single instance, which could not be discussed in another procedural stage, with the breadth provided for by section 8.2.h of the American Convention on Human Rights. By virtue of the foregoing, **the ground is granted** and the penalty imposed on ([Name 016]) for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is annulled. Remand for trial is ordered for a new hearing on this point, in which the principle of non-reformation in peius must be respected and the evidence offered by the defense in favor of the defendant must be considered.\n\nJudge Escalante Quirós notes that, in view of having issued a dissenting vote in the preceding recital and having declared the second ground of the appeal filed by the private defense of the accused ([Nombre 016]) without merit, he dissents and considers that the fifth argument of the challenge made by the same representation of ([Nombre 016]) must be expressly resolved.\n\n**Sole ground of the appeal filed by Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of the accused ([Nombre 004]).** Alleges \"Disagreement with the assessment of the evidence.\" Considers that an error was committed by insufficiently assessing the evidence presented by the defense. Points out that in the call with sequence 0060281, within the conversation it is said that money was given to her client, but the amount is not indicated, nor its origin. States that the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime of drug transportation was overlooked, since possession of drug caches by her client was never materialized. Highlights that the court based its decision on the interpretation of some transcripts, according to which a supposed system of informal loans and currency exchange was mentioned, which was considered coded language to refer to illicit activities. Argues that the evidence presented is insufficient, lacks technical rigor, and does not demonstrate the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Details that the appeal is based on the absence of sufficient and valid evidence that clearly and precisely demonstrates her client's participation in the crimes charged. Alleges that the judgment presents serious deficiencies in the appreciation of the evidence, which led to the conviction of the defendant, without regard for due process and the principle of innocence. Regarding the grievance, states that the absence of adequate intellectual reasoning with respect to the testimonial and documentary evidence led to an illegitimate conclusion contrary to the principle of derivation, because it was determined that the accused committed the acts charged. Argues that there was an erroneous interpretation of the facts and a lack of correlation between the accusation and the judgment, since the accused was convicted based on facts that were not adequately individualized, nor described in the accusation. Considers that in this case, the provisions of Article 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) were violated, according to which there must be a clear, precise, and detailed account of the act.\n\nHighlights that the circumstances of time, place, and manner in which the accused allegedly participated in the illicit activities were not clearly specified, which generated a state of defenselessness. Adds that \"the lack of justification in the assessment of the evidence, which must be clear and consistent with the established facts, constitutes a defect in reasoning that has affected my client's right to defense.\" Considers that it has not been sufficiently or reasonably explained how the conclusion regarding the accused's criminal responsibility was reached. States that this error in the assessment of the evidentiary elements led to the imposition of a 24-year prison sentence, to the detriment of her client's liberty. Concludes that there was a violation of due process, derived from the improper assessment of the evidence, which has resulted in a ruling that does not correspond with the principles of legality and presumption of innocence. Requests the judgment be annulled and the accused be acquitted; alternatively, requests a retrial. In this latter case, petitions that the defendant's release be ordered, since the pretrial detention measure was imposed as a consequence of the conviction. **First ground of the appeal filed by ([Nombre 004]), in exercise of his material defense.** Alleges \"Disagreement with the assessment of the evidence.\" Outlines that from folio 647 of the judgment, the lower court (a quo) described the reasons why it considered him responsible for the drug trafficking activity. Considers that the expressed reasoning lacks elements that demonstrate or materialize the communications captured through the ordered interceptions, which constituted the only indication used as the basis for the conviction. Cites resolution 2004-1408 of the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) related to the assessment of circumstantial evidence. Considers there is no full verification of the act from the content of the telephone interceptions, which allow for various interpretations, not just one as established in the judgment, and on the other hand, the gravity, precision, and concordance of the indicator fact are absent, because a single call is not sufficient to attribute criminal responsibility to him, coupled with the fact that the content of the communications is colloquial and does not allow, together with other evidence, to derive that they involve contacts related to illicit activities. Requests that the indications be declared ambiguous and that the appropriate decision be made. As a grievance, details that he was sentenced to a prison term in a judgment based solely on ambiguous indications. Requests the judgment be annulled and the cause be remanded for trial; also requests his immediate release. **Third ground of the appeal filed by ([Nombre 004]), in exercise of his material defense.** Claims \"Disagreement with the legality of the voice identification (reconocimiento de voz) that the Court performed on me at trial.\" Details that the judgment verifies that the lower court (a quo) performed a voice identification on him in open court and compared it with that of the interlocutor of the call identified with sequence 0060284 and reached the conclusion that it was the same, on which it bases part of the narcotics trafficking crime. Alleges that the requirements of Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) for performing the voice identification were not followed, as the rule states that the proceeding must be recorded in an official report (acta) and that the rules for the identification of persons must be followed. Rebukes that the lower court (a quo) said nothing regarding the legality of the act and also did not prepare any official report (acta), much less follow the corresponding procedure, for which reason he requests that, by way of a protest for defective procedural activity, the voice identification act performed by the lower court (a quo) be annulled, for not following the procedure established in the procedural regulations. Regarding the grievance, indicates that a voice identification was used as the basis for the judgment without meeting the requirements that legitimize the act. Requests the nullity of the voice identification and all derivative evidence; also, requests that a retrial be ordered. **The grounds are declared without merit.** The defendant ([Nombre 004]) was declared the responsible perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking in its aggravated form, for which a sentence of 10 years in prison was imposed, based on the following facts: \"*1. In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], [Nombre 033], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily La Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Canton of Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; areas in which they kept under their control various properties for the storage, distribution, and sale of drugs, as well as for the receipt of money from the illicit activity. 2. The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: The storage and dosage of the drug caches acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of the caches to the various marketing points. The marketing of drug caches owned by the criminal group to other narco-gangs based in the national territory. The marketing of drug caches owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug addicts, through the properties held by the organization for such purposes, 'Bunker' type, as well as on the public roads of the areas under the organization's control. The insertion into the financial system and national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking to employ various means for that purpose. 3. This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so each of its members executed specific functions, all in a single direction, the marketing of drugs and the group's protection over the territories in which they conducted the illicit activity.*\"\n\nAs indicated, the function of each of its members was essentially as follows […] [Name 004]: Member of the criminal group, who, according to the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group, was responsible for collecting and safeguarding money originating from the illicit drug trafficking (tráfico ilícito de drogas). Likewise, the accused ([Name 004]) had the function within the group of carrying out any logistical (logística) action assigned to him by the higher-ranking members […] 4.26 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] and [Name 029] recruited the accused [Name 004], so that during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, he would perform functions inherent to the logistics (logística) of the criminal organization, which were entrusted for the security of the criminal group through surveillance, security, and the storage of money proceeds from drug trafficking, actions for which the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.27 On September 1, 2019, the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004] by telephone to appear at a banking institution in the Plaza Lincoln Shopping Center in Moravia and make deposits of money proceeds from the trafficking and sale of narcotics into third-party accounts, money that was also intended to be introduced into the national financial system through the acquisition of high-value assets. 4.28 On February 13, 2020, at 7:01 p.m., the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004] by telephone to collect the money generated from the drug trafficking activity at different points in the León XIII neighborhood, as well as from the illegal money lending activity carried out by the criminal group to third parties with money proceeds from drug trafficking. 4.29 On February 13, 2020, at 8:59 p.m., the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004] by telephone to collect the money generated from the drug trafficking activity at different points in the León XIII neighborhood, as well as from the illegal activity of informal money lending carried out by the criminal group to third parties with money proceeds from the trafficking and sale of narcotics\" (sic. Cf. fs. 276 to 291 of the judgment). From the foregoing account of facts, it follows that the accused ([Name 004]) was essentially attributed with (i) logistical (logística) functions related to the security of the criminal group and (ii) the storage of money. In addition to the above, he is mentioned in three specific events that occurred, the first on September 1, 2019, and the remaining two on February 13, 2020. As will be discussed, the participation of [Name 004] [Name 004] as a co-perpetrator (coautor) of the crime of drug trafficking was proven based on his intervention in the role of providing security to the criminal group, but not with respect to the storage of money. In this vein, it should be emphasized that, although the trial court deemed all of the facts outlined above to be proven (with which Judge Escalante Quirós agrees and details in his respective dissenting vote (voto salvado)), the majority of this Tribunal considers that there are deficiencies in the intellectual reasoning that must be declared regarding the facts located in points 4.27, 4.28, and 4.29, because the evidence considered by the a quo does not prove the circumstances described therein. With respect to the first fact, located on September 1, 2019, it is detailed that [Name 029] instructed his brother ([Name 004]) to \"make deposits of money proceeds from the trafficking and sale of narcotics into third-party accounts,\" through a banking institution in the Plaza Lincoln shopping center. The proof of that fact arose from the following communication: \"From [Valor 064]. Call identified with sequence number 0026740. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 149]. This call was made at 1:55 p.m. on September 1, 2019. [Name 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with a subject who identified himself as the brother of [Name 029] alias \"[Nombre 083].\" The conversation yielded data of interest up to second 00:00:55 where [Nombre 083] said – Diay to exchange. Brother said – Dude but where to, the banks are closed. [Nombre 083] said – In the Lincoln. Brother said – In the Lincoln. [Nombre 083] said – Yes, that's where we go. Brother said – Mmm dude. [Nombre 083] said – No no, otherwise I'm going to tell this guy to find someone.\n\nBrother said – Okay. [Nombre 083] said – Okay dude. Call ended\" (cf. f. 652 of the judgment). From the above, it follows that ([Name 004]) had to \"exchange\" money—which seems consistent with the currency conversion carried out by [Name 029] through third parties—; however, at no point in the conversation, at least in the passage recorded in the judgment, is the deposit of money into third-party accounts discussed. A similar situation occurs with the next event, located temporally at 7:01 p.m. on February 13, 2020, wherein it is indicated that [Name 029] instructed ([Name 004]) to \"collect the money generated from the drug trafficking activity at different points in the León XIII neighborhood, as well as from the illegal money lending activity carried out by the criminal group to third parties\" [sic]. In order to prove this fact, the trial court assessed the following intercepted communication: \"From 355415070501490. Call identified with sequence number 0064058. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 149]. This call was made at 7:01 p.m. on February 13, 2020. Sequence number System date and time 0064058 02/13/2020 07:01:45 p.m. [Name 029] alias \"[Nombre 083]\" spoke with a subject who has been identified as the brother alias \"[Nombre 083]\", user of telephone line [Valor 149]. Brother said – Hello. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Are you at home. [Nombre 083] said – No. Brother said\n\n– How much does he have to pay in biweekly interest. [Nombre 083] said – Twenty. Brother said – Twenty. They continue talking about topics of no interest to the investigation until second 00:00:28 where [Nombre 083] said – Of the other sixty. Brother said – Ah. [Nombre 083] said – The other sixty. Brother said – Yes, but he hasn't told me anything, who the other one is. [Nombre 083] said – Eh, neighbor, that I told you to write down. Brother said – The neighbor, neighbor, eh I have three hundred written down for a neighbor. [Nombre 083] said – That's the one. Brother said – Ah then I'll put that down as the neighbor. [Nombre 083] said – Ah. Brother said – I'll take another sheet and put neighbor, but that's per month. [Nombre 083] said – Yes. Brother said – Sixty per month, okay. They continue talking about topics of no interest to the investigation until the end\" [sic]. (Cf. f. 653 of the judgment). From this conversation, the first thing that must be noted is that it is not possible to infer that ([Name 004]) was collecting money from drug trafficking, as no mention is made of this aspect. Now, regarding the collection of money from loans, the information derived is not, in and of itself, conclusive, as it consists simply of the instruction from [Name 029] to his brother to make some collections, but it is not clear, with any certainty, what action the latter might have taken based on that instruction. In this sense, based on the content of the conversation, the majority of this Chamber considers that it would not be possible to discern whether they are talking about a loan, a fractional payment for the sale of some asset, or the collection of profits from an illicit business. The third event, located on February 13, shortly after the previous one, that is, at 8:59 p.m., once again alludes to [Name 291] instructing his brother \"to collect the money generated from the drug trafficking activity at different points in the León XIII neighborhood, as well as from the illegal activity of informal loans.\" The intercepted communication that was considered to prove that event is the following: \"From 355415070501490. Call identified with sequence number 0064311. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 149]. This call was made at 8:59 p.m. on February 13, 2020. Sequence number System date and time 0064311 02/13/2020 08:59:18 p.m.\n\n[Nombre 029], alias \"[Nombre 083]\", spoke with an identified individual who would be the brother, alias \"[Nombre 083]\", user of the telephone line [Valor 149]. [Nombre 083] said – Hello. Brother said – He's at the house. [Nombre 083] said – No. Brother said – Man, I was thinking, how much do you charge, those twenty are per month. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Too cheap, man. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Too much. [Nombre 083] said – Yes. Brother said – You're not making a damn thing, buddy. [Nombre 083] said – Well, it's better that way. Brother said – No, no, at least, at least it has to be thirty. [Nombre 083] said – Damn. Brother said – Thirty, thirty, just imagine your mother-in-law charges twenty just per fortnight. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Imagine, you're going to lend ten grand, they charge fifty per month per hundred thousand. [Nombre 083] said – Mhm. Brother said – Imagine, it's just that lalo, lolo just came by here right now to tell me the neighbor also wants to see if, so I should let you know, I'll do it and you already tell him the amount, he tells me yes. [Nombre 083] said – Ah, but obviously they make something. Brother – Ah. [Nombre 083] said – So they can make something more, above all, man. Brother said – That's why, but, but. [Nombre 083] said – What I need is to receive the one hundred thousand per month. Brother said – Yes, I understand, I understand but you can get something more, like I tell you, charging ten more, I mean, nothing happens, it's thirty bucks and you're not breaking people like this female. [Nombre 083] said – Yes, what a shame [sic]. (cf. pp. 653 to 654 of the judgment). From this communication, what is inferred is a disagreement between the brothers ([Nombre 029] and [Nombre 004]) over the amounts that [Nombre 029] charged third parties, because [Nombre 004] considered they were low amounts. However, the majority considers that it is not possible to infer that the conversation refers to money produced by drug trafficking. It appears that the record relates to that recorded for the previous event, in which interest amounts were being discussed, but the fact is that it does not provide sufficient information to deduce what specific action ([Nombre 004]) would have carried out. By virtue of the foregoing, the majority of this Chamber concludes that the accreditation of those events relating to the indicted person's contribution through the storage of money from the organization does not stem from the evidence that was analyzed in the judgment. Apart from what has already been indicated, the first-instance ruling only takes up communications with sequence numbers 0060281, from 17:54 on January 29, 2019; 0060284, from 17:55 on January 29, 2019; 0060284, from 18:52 on January 29, 2019, all from the telephone line [Valor 077], from which the loss of approximately ₡200,000 of the money that, at that time, was in the custody of [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] is inferred. Regarding ([Nombre 004]), the only thing reflected is that he would have delivered a bag of money to alias \"[Nombre 083]\", which verifies that he knows this latter individual, but none of the conduct charged to him is accredited. Now then, with respect to the security functions, this Chamber unanimously considers that the evidence recorded in the judgment does allow for the inference that ([Nombre 004]) integrated himself into the criminal organization to carry out, jointly with the other defendants, security and custody tasks. As has been indicated throughout this pronouncement, based on the evidence introduced at trial, the trial court established an entire logistics system developed by the members of the criminal organization, directed mainly at providing custody and personal security to its leader, that is, to [Nombre 001], when he traveled on public roads, in order not to be surprised by the authorities and so that the means of transport he used were not known — an issue that was extensively addressed when reviewing the legal situation of the brothers ([Nombre 014], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022]) and of [Nombre 010], in recitals XV and XXI of this pronouncement, to which reference is made —. In that context, the evidence that was assessed by the trial court, in effect, allows for the conclusion that the defendant ([Nombre 004]), alias \"[Nombre 258]\", participated in those activities. In this regard, it is stated: \"In the transfers of Mr. [Nombre 001], [Nombre 004] participated on many occasions, fulfilling the functions of keeping the members alert to police presence.\" (cf. p. 987 of the judgment). Now then, in support of that task, it is stated: \"it must be borne in mind that [Nombre 004] is also accused of performing functions typical of the logistics of the criminal organization, which were directed at the security of the group, functions which he fulfilled completely and are deemed proven through the following calls: 'From [Valor 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0003178. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 150]. This call was made at 17:13 on June 11, 2020.\n\nAlias \"[Nombre 258]\" received a call from [Nombre 013], alias \"[Nombre 124]/[Nombre 124]\", user of the telephone line [Valor 150]. They begin by discussing irrelevant aspects, until minute 00:16:16, [Nombre 004] said – they took down the license plates, [Nombre 258] said come down the main road, all clear below, I am right on the corner down below, everything is clear, [Nombre 004] said – I'm on my way, I'm going by the little mine, all good here by the little mine, [Nombre 258] said – come on, come on, I already see you, I'm going to the one, I'm going to the one, [Nombre 004] said – yes, head to the one, [Nombre 258] said – man, what a bummer, there's a shitload of cars, take it easy, take it easy, [Nombre 004] said – go for it, [Nombre 258] said – I'm going up to the one and the one looks clear, [Nombre 004] said – all good on the one and all, ok, I'm on my way, [Nombre 258] said – the one is clear clear clear, there's not a damn thing up ahead, go go, I just saw \"[Nombre 083]\", [Nombre 004] said – yes, \"[Nombre 083]\" is there, damn it, yes they took down the license plates, [Nombre 258] said – go go go, [Nombre 004] said – yeah I'm already here (unintelligible), [Nombre 258] said – I already see you, [Nombre 004] said – they seriously took down the license plates. From [Valor 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0003173. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 099]. This call was made at 16:39 on June 11, 2020. Alias \"[Nombre 258]\" received a call from [Nombre 161], alias \"[Nombre 083]\", user of the telephone line [Valor 099]. [Nombre 258] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 225] said – watch out, [Nombre 258] said – ah, [Nombre 225] said – we need to watch out, [Nombre 258] said – okay, [Nombre 225] said – go for it. From [Valor 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0003178. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 150]. This call was made at 17:13 on June 11, 2020. Alias \"[Nombre 258]\" received a call from [Nombre 013], alias \"[Nombre 124]/[Nombre 124]\", user of the telephone line [Valor 150].\n\nThey begin talking about irrelevant matters, until minute 00:16:16, [Name 004] said -they took their plates off, [Name 258] said -come down the main road, everything is clear below, I'm at the very corner down below, everything is clear, [Name 004] said -here I go now, I'm going by the little mine, everything's fine here by the little mine, [Name 258] said -come on, come on, I saw you, I'm heading to the one, heading to the one, [Name 004] said -yeah, take the one, [Name 258] said -man, damn, there's a shitload of cars, take it easy, take it easy, [Name 004] said -take it, [Name 258] said -I'm going up to the one and the one looks clear, [Name 004] said -the one is all good and everything, ok, here I go, [Name 258] said -the one is clear clear clear, there's not a damn thing going up, go go, I just saw \"[Name 083]\", [Name 004] said -yeah, \"[Name 083]\" is there, damn, they really took their plates off, [Name 258] said -go go go, [Name 004] said -yeah, I'm here now (unintelligible), [Name 258] said -I saw you, [Name 004] said -they really took their plates off for real\". It can be seen in the first two calls how [Name 004] alias \"[Name 258]\" talks with [Name 013] and confirms to him that both he and [Name 161] alias \"[Name 083]\" had been accosted by the police and had the license plates removed from the motorcycles they were driving, a situation that was confirmed by the judicial police and recorded in police report IP-138-EN-20 extension in the following manner: \"…in said communication it was reflected how ([Name 013]) made reference to whether they took their plates off, this because the Public Force officers carried out an intervention in the afternoon hours, resulting in two motorcycles being detained, the same that were driven by ([Name 004]) and [Name 161]…\" (page 14 of police report IP-138-EN-20 extension). The section of the report that mentions the police stop carried out on [Name 004] and [Name 161] contains illustrative photographs of both the faces of the accused and their identity documents, which comes to confirm the direct link of [Name 004] with the remaining members of the criminal group, but furthermore confirms the use and possession of the cellular service that was attributed to [Name 004]» [sic]. (cf. folios 654 to 656 of the judgment). The information emanating from the communications recorded in the judgment that reliably place ([Name 004]) as one of those in charge of providing information on the state of the roads and the places through which the members of the criminal organization traveled, was reinforced by other records that account for the level of trust and closeness that ([Name 004]) had with other defendants: «The link between [Name 004] and the operational logistical tasks of the criminal group was more than confirmed by the analysis of the following calls: \"From 352016076063783. Call identified with sequence number 0247467. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 149]. This call was made at 15:03 hours on March 10, 2020. [Name 013] alias \"[Name 124]/[Name 124]\", made a call to [Name 258], user of telephone line [Value 149]. They begin talking about irrelevant matters until minute 00:04:25, [Name 004] said -leave right away, [Name 258] said -all right all right, [Name 004] said -man, when those guys leave and take off and everything, you close up, [Name 258] said -I'll close up, all good, [Name 004] said -make sure the one below is all good, [Name 258] said -ok ok ok, the things are inside, [Name 004] said -close everything up, make sure everything in the house is all good, that the guys all take off, that they don't take anything, [Name 258] said -ready ready, they continue talking about irrelevant matters. From [Value 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0001748. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 150]. This call was made at 18:43 hours on May 17, 2020. [Name 258] received a call from [Name 013] alias \"[Name 124]/[Name 124]\", user of telephone line [Value 150]. [Name 258] said -hello, [Name 004] said -tell me what happened, [Name 258] said -get on whatsapp you dumbass so I can show you the photos man. From [Value 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0002590. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 099]. This call was made at 18:14 hours on June 02, 2020. Alias [Name 258] received a call from [Name 161] alias \"[Name 083]\", user of telephone line [Value 099]. [Name 258] said -hello, [Name 225] said -where's the motorcycle at, [Name 258] said -which motorcycle, [Name 225] said -the blue one man, [Name 258] said -down there man, [Name 225] said -why are you such an idiot, you know I'm going to leave with this and you leave it there, [Name 258] said -oh man, you asshole, I had forgotten about it. From [Value 149]. Call identified with sequence number 0002995. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 150]. This call was made at 13:22 hours on June 09, 2020. Alias \"[Name 258]\", received a call from [Name 013] alias \"[Name 124]/[Name 124]\", user of telephone line [Value 150].\n\n[Nombre 258] said -hello, [Nombre 004] said -where are you, [Nombre 258] said -at my house, [Nombre 004] said -come on man, there are things to do man, [Nombre 258] said -how are there things to do, if you didn't tell me anything, I don't know, [Nombre 004] said -come on come on man\" (sic. Cf. pp. 656 to 657 of the judgment). The records transcribed above show that ([Nombre 004]) interacts with two of the defendants closest to [Nombre 001], since they were people who accompanied him at different times, for example, on visits to his romantic partner at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center or while he was traveling on the road, avoiding police presence and even serving as intermediaries with the other defendants. By virtue of the foregoing, the conclusion that the lower court (a quo) derived from the examination of the evidence is acceptable: \"Beyond any doubt it is clear that [Nombre 004] had full knowledge of the criminal activity by this structure […] Thus, and with the evidence being entirely consistent with respect to [Nombre 004], it is concluded that the facts held as proven against him position him as an active member of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001]\" (cf. pp. 657 to 658 of the judgment). Now, the trial court classified the criminal participation of ([Nombre 004]) as co-authorship (coautoría) in aggravated drug trafficking. Even though it was noted above, by majority, that not all the actions attributed to the defendant were duly accredited, this does not generate any impact on the determination of his criminal liability at the level of co-authorship (coautoría). As established in considerando XXI —to which reference is made for greater detail—, co-authorship (coautoría) is a form of plural criminal participation, in which the collective act is integrated with the individual causal contribution of each participant —the latter term understood in a broad sense—. In the case of ([Nombre 004]), the contribution he made to the criminal activity was to participate in security operations that were mostly directed at guaranteeing the free transit of [Nombre 001] on public roads, which —as indicated— had as one of its objectives that he not be caught by the authorities. It is reiterated that ensuring the personal freedom and physical integrity of the leader of the organization makes it possible to keep the criminal activity running, since he is the one who organizes it and distributes the work, a context in which enabling his permanence in that position does not constitute a marginal or accessory task, but rather is integrated within the division of functions, the sum of which completes the collective act. By virtue of the foregoing, the contribution made by the defendant, as already clarified, places him at the level of co-authorship (coautoría) in the crime of aggravated drug trafficking. Now, regarding the specific complaints raised by the appellants, it must be indicated that no irregularity is found in the assessment that the trial court made of the defendant's voice. The lower court (a quo) detailed in the judgment the following: \"the court fully recognizes the defendant's voice given that it is exactly the same voice that was also identified each time he requested the floor during trial\" (cf. p. 650 of the judgment). This is a conclusion that derives from the immediacy (inmediación) of the evidence and the benefits of an oral trial, in which the judges have the possibility of broadly perceiving the evidence through their senses, for which reason the formalities sought by the defense were not necessary. In any case, said statement only reaffirms what the trial court verified by other means, namely: \"It can be seen in the first two calls how [Nombre 004] alias '[Nombre 258]' talks with [Nombre 013] and confirms that both he and [Nombre 161] alias '[Nombre 083]' had been approached by the police and had the license plates of the motorcycles they were driving taken down, a situation that was confirmed by the judicial police and reflected in police report IP-138-EN-20 addendum in the following manner: '…in said communication it was reflected how ([Nombre 013]) made reference to whether they took the plates down, this because the Public Force officers carried out an intervention in the afternoon, resulting in two detained motorcycles, which were being driven by ([Nombre 004]) and [Nombre 161]…' (page 14 police report IP-138-EN-20 addendum). The section of the report that mentions the police approach made to [Nombre 004] [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 161] contains inserted illustrative photographs of both the defendants' faces and their identity documents, which confirms the direct link of [Nombre 004] with the remaining members of the criminal group, but furthermore confirms the use and possession of the cellular service attributed to [Nombre 004]\" [sic]. (cf. p. 656 of the judgment). In accordance with the foregoing, even if the reference made by the trial court regarding the defendant's voice were suppressed, the identification of ([Nombre 004]) as one of the interlocutors in the calls that were attributed to him and that were transcribed in the lower court's ruling would remain unchanged. On the other hand, the absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the transportation of drugs is questioned; however, a function of that nature was not attributed to him. The actions that were held as proven in which the defendant participates derive from circumstantial evidence (prueba indiciaria), which is completely valid in a system governed by freedom of proof (libertad probatoria). As has been pointed out, the telephone interventions constitute one of the most relevant inputs to support the criminal liability of ([Nombre 004]), but not the only one, because the dynamics and operating methods of the criminal organization to which he belonged were illustrated from a significant quantity of inputs obtained over more than two years of investigation and which include surveillances, follow-ups, connections with other criminal organizations, among others. What the appellant party seeks is a fragmented and partial analysis of the evidence, since only in that way would it be possible to give way to doubt; however, an exercise of that nature is technically incorrect and, therefore, improper. Direct evidence is not only not essential, but it is difficult to obtain in criminal activities that are carried out with the level of organization and professionalism with which the defendants operated, who acted clandestinely and trying not to leave a trace of their activities. Therefore, it is the circumstantial evidence (prueba indiciaria), assessed jointly and in a concatenated manner, that has validly supported the declaration of criminal liability of the defendants and particularly of ([Nombre 004]). Except for the deficiencies that were noted, in the consideration of the majority of the members of this Chamber, the trial court adequately assessed the evidence and sufficiently developed the reasons why it considered that the accused performed the functions attributed to him, a conclusion with which this Chamber unanimously agrees, as has been set forth. A lack of correlation between the accusation and the judgment is alleged; however, it has been verified that the acts accused and those proven are the same. The defense did not detail which fact or circumstance would have been included by the trial court without having been described in the judgment, so it is not possible to understand what it refers to. The truth is that, during the comprehensive review of the ruling, it has been possible to verify that the trial court absorbed a significant quantity of information that it later reproduced in the judgment and that allowed the manner in which the defendants organized themselves to be known. Even information on actions that were not punishable was recorded, such as recreational activities, but which contributed to understanding the way in which the group behaved, mainly around its leader [Nombre 001]. It is verified that the criminal phenomenon investigated and that was ultimately proven at trial was drug trafficking, and it is on this basis that the declaration of the accused's criminal liability was made.\n\nAt no time did the original accusation (imputación) exceed its scope, thus the inclusion of any surprising aspect from which the accused (encartado) had no possibility of defending himself is ruled out. Nor are defects in the accusation (imputación) verified, since the factual description contained in the accusation (acusación) specifies the functions and activities attributed to the accused (encartado). Facts 1 and 2 of the factual account refer to the existence of the criminal organization, the period during which it remained active, its members, and the operational model through which the criminal activities were carried out. The third fact describes the function that the accused (encartado) fulfilled within the criminal organization and which constitutes his contribution to the crime. Then, in fact 4.26, it was clearly attributed to the defendant ([Nombre 004]) that, between April 2018 and October 2020, he performed logistics functions for the organization and specifically security functions, so it is not true that the accusation (acusación) lacks the level of detail and specificity sufficient for the accused (encartado) to understand the facts that were imputed to him and to be able to defend himself against them —the remaining attributions are not taken into consideration as it is unnecessary in light of the decision reached—. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that the evidentiary assessment carried out by the trial court, with respect to the criminal liability of ([Nombre 004]) —with the clarifications made in this recital—, is sufficient and adequate, which is why the claims expressed by the technical and material defense must be dismissed. Consequently, the sole ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by the private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of the accused ([Nombre 004]), and the first and third grounds of the challenge (impugnación) brought by the latter in exercise of his material defense, are declared without merit (sin lugar). By majority, the sentence (pena) imposed is annulled ex officio, and a new sentencing hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered, since the criminal reproach of ([Nombre 004]) was made in consideration of the totality of the illicit actions attributed and, consequently, it is appropriate to analyze whether any adjustment is warranted based on his new circumstances as delimited in this ruling. On that occasion, the principle of non-reformation in detriment (no reforma en perjuicio) must be observed.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** Although the decision set forth in the preceding recital (XXXIII) is unanimous – regarding the declaration that the three grounds of the described appeals (recursos de apelación) are without merit – with deep respect I depart from the majority decision of this *ad quem* chamber only in two aspects: first, insofar as it was considered that: \"…there are deficiencies in the intellectual reasoning (fundamentación intelectiva) that must be declared, with respect to the facts located in points 4.27, 4.28, and 4.29, since the evidence considered by the *a quo* does not prove the circumstances described therein.\", and second, for the consequent decision by the majority to annul, ex officio, the sentence (pena) imposed on [Nombre 004] and to order a remand (reenvío) for a new ruling on the matter. For the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, when declaring the sole ground of the appeal (apelación) by the private defense on behalf of ([Nombre 004]) without merit, and the first and third grounds of the challenge (impugnación) by the accused (encartado) in his material defense, I do so with the understanding that the judgment (sentencia) proved, objectively and adequately, all the facts that the Public Ministry attributed to [Nombre 004]. After reviewing the intellectual reasoning (fundamentación intelectiva) of the verdict (folio 647 et seq.), regarding the determination of the facts for which the defendant was convicted, I consider that the court did provide reasoning (motivó) for the decision according to the duty arising from Articles 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal). In this second-instance ruling – both in the recitals resolved unanimously, as well as in my dissenting votes – it has been established that [Nombre 029], who is the older brother of [Nombre 004], was one of the co-perpetrators of drug trafficking closest to the top of the criminal network. The trial court made it clear that, during the entire investigation period, the sole economic activity to which [Nombre 029] dedicated himself was the distribution and trafficking of drugs, as part of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001]. Now, it was proven – and is hereby confirmed at this stage – that one of the tasks of [Nombre 029] was the storage and administration of money obtained from drug trafficking. In this vein, the *a quo* began the analysis regarding his brother [Nombre 004], highlighting that in an intercepted communication – which occurred on January 20, 2019 – (sequence 0060281), it is clear that on the instructions of [Nombre 029] and even his partner, also accused [Nombre 026], [Nombre 004] certainly participated in the handling of the money that came from drug trafficking by this criminal group. In addition, the intervention – as analyzed by the criminal court – also revealed that [Nombre 029] was asking for accounts from [Nombre 004] precisely regarding his handling of the criminal network's money, for which the verdict assesses the explicit content of the communication contained in sequence 0060284. The *a quo* summarizes what was reflected by the communications, specifically by stating that: “Note then how a totally active participation by [Nombre 004] is observed, having total contact with the money that came from drug trafficking, to the point that in one of the calls he takes the phone from [Nombre 026], who was talking with [Nombre 029] about the issue of money movements, being that [Nombre 004] [Nombre 004] takes part in the reception, storage, and custody of said money, the court fully recognizes the voice of the defendant given that it is exactly the same voice that was also identified every time he requested to speak during the debate.” (cfr. judgment (sentencia), folio 650). Continuing with the study of the evidence, the verdict proceeds to specify the specific events accused by the Public Ministry, having proven the one on September 1, 2019. In this regard, according to the analysis of the communication recorded in sequence number 0026740, the decision-making body concludes that [Nombre 029] requested his brother [Nombre 004] to proceed to “exchange” money at a bank branch located in Plaza Lincoln in Moravia. At this point, I depart from the vehement consideration of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, since I consider that the accused fact does indeed impute to [Nombre 004] having received that instruction from his brother [Nombre 029], in the context of his knowledge and active participation precisely in the reception and administration of the proceeds from drug trafficking. Although the evidence does not establish that the order was for deposits to be made into third-party accounts, this could even be hypothetically excluded from the proven facts without the result being different, given that what is relevant is that the court accredited that the evidence allowed linking [Nombre 004], precisely following instructions from his brother [Nombre 029], in the context of receiving the money that the organization obtained from the sale and movement of drugs. The same happens with the other two events accused and proven to have occurred on February 13, 2020, which the *a quo* infers from other telephone communications between [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 004] (sequence 0064311), according to which it concludes that: “Note that once [Nombre 004] following instructions from his brother [Nombre 029], (…) takes part in the matter and questions his brother about why he charges such low interest, that he could perfectly charge a little more, clearly evidencing the informality and illegality of the loans.” (ibid, folio 654). In this regard, if the accusation was that [Nombre 029] issued instructions to his brother [Nombre 004], in the context of using money from drug trafficking for loans to third parties, that was certainly what the evidence proved. Therefore, from my point of view, the reasoning (fundamentación) for the conviction of ([Nombre 004]) was indeed made according to the requirements of articles 142 and 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), which is why I consider that all the facts proven by the *a quo* must remain intact. Consequently, I also depart from the majority decision, consisting of annulling, ex officio, the sentence (pena) imposed on [Nombre 004] and ordering the respective remand (reenvío). In my view, since the proven facts of the judgment (sentencia) remain intact, there is no reduction in criminal liability that justifies a reconsideration of the culpability. Therefore, I consider that the sentence (pena) should not be annulled, but rather, on the contrary, the second ground of the appeal (apelación) of ([Nombre 004]), which precisely refers to the reasoning (fundamentación) of the sentence (pena) imposed on him by the court, must be addressed and resolved.-\n\n**Second ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by ([Nombre 004]), in exercise of his material defense.** Claims «Disagreement with the determination of the sentence (pena)». He considers that in his case the parameters for determining the sentence (pena) established in article 71 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal) were not addressed, specifically the provisions in subsections d) and e), which require the analysis of the determining elements of the crime and the personal characteristics of the active subject. He indicates that a Social Work expert opinion was offered that describes the extreme poverty conditions in which he has lived, his lack of schooling which has limited his employment opportunities. He states that the document offers a professional assessment that provides a perspective on his personal characteristics and that could have underpinned the imposition of a lesser sentence (pena). He accuses that the aforementioned expert opinion was not analyzed and that the provision in article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal) was breached, regarding the duty to provide reasoning (fundamentación). He considers that the detailed deficiencies must lead to the sentence (pena) imposed being declared ineffective. Regarding the grievance, he indicates that a higher sentence (pena) was imposed on him than that corresponding to his situation. He requests that the sentence (pena) imposed be annulled and a new sentencing hearing (juicio de reenvío) be ordered; additionally, that the Social Work expert opinion contained in the case file be assessed. **A ruling is omitted as unnecessary.** By virtue of the fact that in the preceding recital the majority of this Chamber ex officio ordered the new sentencing hearing (juicio de reenvío) for a new reasoning (fundamentación) of the sentence (pena) to be imposed on ([Nombre 004]) for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, a ruling on the second ground of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by the defendant is omitted as unnecessary.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** In order to be consistent with my dissenting vote set forth in the preceding recital – XXXIII –, with deep respect I depart from the majority decision of this *ad quem* chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in the dissenting vote that precedes, I consider that the second ground of the appeal (apelación) of the accused (encartado) ([Nombre 004]) must indeed be addressed and resolved.-\n\n**XXXV. Second ground of appeal (apelación) filed by the private defender Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Nombre 001].** Alleges «Violation of the principle of reasoning (fundamentación) for failing to resolve what was requested, transgression of the principle of accusation (imputación), impairment of the right to defense and, consequently, to due process, due to excessively broad time frames». Points out that the trial court incurred a defect due to a total lack of analytical and reasoned justification (motivación) regarding the violation of the right to defense that was claimed, since «the time frames described in the accusation (acusación) are excessively extensive and, in the case of his client, [Nombre 001], the circumstances of time, manner, and place are never detailed, which prevents the accusatory piece from meeting the requirements for its validity». States that the justification (motivación) contained in the judgment (sentencia) is contradictory, partial, and insufficient. He maintains that the verdict omits presenting factual and legal grounds (fundamentos fácticos y jurídicos) for the defense's arguments «without it being known why they were not assessed nor why they are not detailed in the ruling (resolución)».\n\nHe argues that the accusation does not directly attribute any criminal conduct to his client; rather, the Public Prosecutor's Office \"uses verbs like 'designated' ('designó') or 'delegated' ('delegó') to try to establish a link with other defendants, without specifying the circumstances of time, place, and manner, essential elements of any charge.\" He clarifies that the accusation cannot be interpreted, and points out that the first fact describes the formation of a criminal organization, which constitutes preparatory acts and, therefore, are not punishable. He indicates that the fourth fact represents \"the central core of the charge,\" containing the specific conducts that the accusing body had to prove. He alleges that an attempt was made to link his client to the organization through a phrase that was \"convenient but lacking evidentiary support,\" such as that he designated a third party. He adds that \"the 'time frame' ('marco temporal')\" in which the accusation places the organization's actions covers 19 months, from April 2018 to October 2019 —not 2020—, which could be a material error that was never corrected. He maintains that with this, \"the prosecution delimited the period in which the facts had to be proven, so the court could not deem as accredited conducts outside that interval.\" He emphasizes that in the subsequent facts, the circumstances of time, manner, and place regarding his client are not described. He considers that the charge presents substantial defects that render it inadmissible, for contravening Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). He recalls that during the closing arguments stage, it was alleged that the accusation generated helplessness, without the judgment ruling on the matter. He reproaches that in fact 4.1, it was not specified how, when, or where his client would have designated ([Nombre 005]) and his wife for the delivery of narcotics. In fact 4.6, he highlights that his client is not mentioned as the one who sold, commercialized, or distributed drugs, but rather a generic reference is made to the organization, which —he indicates— violates the principle of individual criminal responsibility. The same occurs with fact 4.7, where the essential circumstances are also not detailed. He considers it essential to know the quantity of the drug involved, since it could be a case of personal consumption, which would prevent its confiscation. He argues that in facts 4.9 through 4.12, no concrete charge is formulated regarding the relationship with [Nombre 010]. He points out that the verb used was \"authorize\" ('autorizar'), but it does not correspond to a valid charge according to criminal procedural regulations, and that it also does not answer the basic questions of when, where, and how said authorization would have occurred. Regarding fact 4.13, he maintains that the same deficiencies persist, this time concerning the verb \"delegate\" ('delegar') in actions of possession and storage of drugs and weapons. He adds that the temporal parameter extends to 34 months, which in his judgment demonstrates a lack of clarity in the accusation. In fact 4.17, he indicates that the verb \"assign\" ('asignar') was used, but without specifying temporal, spatial, or modal circumstances, nor the type or quantity of the drug allegedly commercialized. He criticizes that the wording of the fact allows inferring that the assignment could have occurred at any time between 2015 and 2018, which makes the charge confusing. Regarding facts 4.20 and 4.23, he objects that they do not contain a concrete charge, and in the latter, he highlights that the recruitment of [Nombre 007] could have occurred even before 2018. He reiterates his observations regarding facts 4.26, 4.33, and 4.42, as well as from 5.1 to 5.14. He considers that his client cannot adequately exercise his defense if he does not know the specific day within the temporal parameter set in the accusation on which he would have performed the attributed conducts. He concludes that the accusation does not comply with the requirements of Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal) and that the trial court did not address these observations. He argues that the right to defense cannot be duly exercised when the accusation is formulated with wide temporal margins and without precision of the other circumstances, which also violates the principle of correlation between the accusation and the judgment. He asserts that none of the circumstances assessed by the court in its reasoning were clearly established in the accusation. He considers that an absolute defect was incurred, since it is not possible to substitute or expand the prosecutorial accusation with a different or more extensive factual narrative to the detriment of the accused. He points out that the proven facts are identical to those charged and that even in the evidence section, the same arguments of the Public Prosecutor's Office were reproduced. He questions that his claim was rejected in barely five lines of the judgment, which he describes as mockery towards his client. He alleges that, unlike his client, concerning the accused [Nombre 007] —acquitted of money laundering— a detailed analysis of the accusation was indeed performed, which constitutes a contradiction that violates the principle of coherence. Finally, he maintains that his client's right to offer evidence to exercise his defense and refute the accusation was affected, since a specific date of occurrence of the facts was not specified and the temporal parameter covers \"any day of the 1033 days mentioned in the accusation,\" implying that the court \"had to suppose that they occurred at some moment,\" a situation that —in his judgment— violates the principle of correlation between the accusation and the ruling. As a grievance, he points out that a conviction was issued against [Nombre 001] through a judgment riddled with errors and contrary to law, such that the imposed penalty lacks legitimacy. He requests the acquittal of the accused and, subsidiarily, that a retrial be ordered. Additionally, he asks that the precautionary measure be revoked and his immediate release be ordered. **The motion is declared without merit.** After analyzing the accusatory document, this Chamber dismisses the defects alleged by the defense. The principle of imputation derives from numerals 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos) and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Pacto Interamericano de Derechos Civiles y Políticos). According to the latter, every person accused of a crime has the right: \"To be informed without delay, in a language they understand and in detail, of the nature and causes of the charge against them\" and also \"To have adequate time and means for the preparation of their defense and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing.\" In the domestic legal order, numeral 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal) translates this supra-constitutional guarantee into the requirement that the accusation contain \"The precise and detailed account of the punishable act attributed.\" Like any other procedural form, the adequate criminal charge must be correlated with the right it protects, which in this case is the right to defense. By virtue of the foregoing, an appropriate charge will be one that enables the affected person to effectively exercise their right to technical and material defense, by providing them with data that allows them to know and understand the attributed act and thus be able to combat it. In this regard, the doctrine states: \"[…] for someone to defend themselves it is essential that there be something to defend against: that is, something that they are attributed to have done or omitted to do in the factual world, with significance in the legal world, a requirement that in criminal procedural matters is known as the charge. The core of that charge is, as has been observed, a factual hypothesis —an action or omission depending on whether it is held to injure a prohibition or a mandate of the legal order— attributed to the accused, which, in the judgment of the person formulating it, leads to criminal-legal consequences, since it contains all the elements, according to the penal law, of a punishable act. The correctly formulated charge is the key that opens the door to the possibility of defending oneself efficiently, for it allows denying all or some of its elements to avoid or lessen the criminal-legal consequence to which it is intended to lead, or, alternatively, adding elements that, combined with those affirmed, also guide toward avoiding the consequence or reducing it. But, for the possibility of being heard to be an efficient means of exercising the defense, it cannot rest on a more or less vague or confused attribution of malice or enmity with the legal order, that is, an imprecise and disordered account of the action or omission charged to the accused, much less on an abstraction (committed homicide or usurpation), resorting to the name of the infraction, but rather, on the contrary, must have as its premise the clear, precise, and detailed affirmation of the concrete, singular fact, from a person's life. This means describing an event —presumed real— with all the circumstances of manner, time, and place that locate it in the world of facts (temporally and spatially) and provide it with its concrete materiality\" (Maier, Julio. Derecho Procesal Penal. Tomo I. 2nd ed. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto, 2002, p.553). In the case at hand, the technical defense considers that the prosecutorial accusation made against [Nombre 001] violates this principle. For this reason, to determine whether the violation exists or not, the first step is to summarize the facts charged and subsequently found proven.\n\nHowever, beforehand, a clarification must be made regarding the specific situation of [Nombre 001], given that he was attributed with being the leader of a criminal organization primarily dedicated to drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas), which is why the charges brought against him are not concentrated in a specific section, but rather are developed throughout the entire factual account (relación fáctica); hence, the transcription of this account is done in extenso: \"1.- In the period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the accused [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046] (deceased), [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], among other persons, formed a complex criminal structure dedicated to medium-scale drug trafficking, which centered its operations in San José, primarily in Ciudadela León XIII, Cuatro Reinas, Cinco Esquinas; and other sectors of the Cantón de Tibás; as well as in some points of the locality of Santo Domingo de Heredia; zones in which they maintained under their control various properties for storage, distribution and sale of drugs, as well as for receiving money from the illicit activity. 2.- The operational model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects: • The storage and dosage of drug caches acquired by the group, a task carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of caches to the various points of sale. • The sale of drug caches owned by the criminal group to other gangs based in the national territory. • The sale of drug caches owned by the structure to third-party drug-dependent persons, through the properties held by the organization for such purposes, 'Bunker' type, as well as on public roads in the zones under the organization's control. • The insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, endeavoring for that purpose the use of various means to that end. 3.- This drug-trafficking group was structured in a pyramidal form, so each of its members performed specific functions, all in a single direction, the sale of drugs and the safeguarding by the group of the territories in which they carried out the illicit activity. As stated, the function of each of its members was essentially the following: • [Nombre 001]: known by the aliases of '[Nombre 084]', among others; he was the leader of the criminal organization, in charge of the direction, supervision and coordination of the criminal group, by his own hand or through intermediary members; he maintained control of the totality of the illicit actions carried out by the criminal structure such as: the storage of drug caches owned by the organization; the transport and distribution of the caches to third-party groups based in various parts of the country; the sale of drugs in zones under the control of the gang; the collection and distribution of the money generated by the illicit activity, as well as endeavoring through multiple actions executed by group members and front persons (testaferros) to insert the proceeds derived from illicit activities into the national economy and financial system, among other things demanded by the drug-trafficking business. • [Nombre 030]: acted as a member of the criminal organization whose duties, among other functions, corresponded under the direction and supervision of the leader [Nombre 001], to endeavor, through the acquisition of high economic value goods, to insert into the national economy and the financial system the economic gains derived from the drug activity carried out by the organization; for this purpose he endeavored to recruit third-party outsiders, who joined the organization as front persons (testaferros) in whose names the goods acquired by the organization were registered in the various lawful controls to register them in the name of front persons who collaborated with the purpose of concealing the illicit origin of the funds through which the goods enjoyed by the criminal group were acquired. • [Nombre 013]: member of the criminal group, who was one of the trusted persons of the leader [Nombre 001], who was responsible, among other functions, for handling his personal security, as well as performing custody work for the drug transports carried out by the criminal group; additionally, he was one of those responsible for transmitting to the remaining members of the organization the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001]; on behalf of the latter, he supervised and personally executed the collection and storage of moneys obtained from the drug trafficking activity, for which he used the property owned by his mother as a 'warehouse' (bodega) or storage center for illicit inputs of the criminal organization. • [Nombre 022]: member of the criminal group, who, in association with the accused ([Nombre 013]), was responsible, among other functions, for handling his personal security, as well as performing custody work for the drug transports carried out by the criminal group; additionally, he was another of those responsible for transmitting to the remaining members of the organization the orders and directives issued by [Nombre 001]; under the direction and supervision of the leader, he executed the collection and storage of moneys obtained from the drug trafficking activity.\n\n• [Name 029]: member of the criminal group; he appeared as one of the leader's trusted persons; his functions included, among others, coordinating and executing all actions aimed at the security and protection of [Name 001] and his family nucleus; additionally, under the direction and supervision of the leader, he personally carried out the deliveries of drug shipments that the organization sold to other criminal structures; he was also responsible, in association with his romantic partner, the accused [Name 026], for the collection and safeguarding of the money derived from the illicit activity carried out by the narco structure; he was also one of the members of the group designated to recruit third parties outside the organization for the purpose of having them provide their accounts at various financial entities in order to move through them the money derived from the drug trafficking activity executed by the organization. • [Name 161]: (absent in this case) member of the criminal group; his functions included, alternately or jointly with ([Name 004]), among others, coordinating and executing all actions aimed at the security and protection of [Name 001] and his family nucleus; additionally, under the direction and supervision of the leader, he carried out the delivery of drug shipments that the organization sold to other criminal structures; he was one of the persons responsible for collecting the money derived from the informal financial intermediation actions (loans) that the narco structure executed, with the purpose of investing the profits from the drug sales activity carried out; and through this intermediation they sought the insertion into the formal economy and the national financial system of the money coming from the narco-activity. • [Name 026]: member of the organization, whose functions included, among others, the task of assisting the accused ([Name 004]) in the stockpiling and storage of the money derived from the distribution and sale of drugs that the criminal organization executed; she also recruited third persons outside the narco gang to make systematic deposits into the accounts used by the organization for the purpose of inserting the money coming from the illicit activity into the national financial system and facilitating the enjoyment and investment of those profits by the members of the criminal structure. • [Name 015]: member of the narco structure, whose functions included, among others, providing support in the tasks assigned by the criminal leader to the accused [Name 004] and [Name 022], primarily in the tasks of distributing shipments and collecting the money derived from the activity inherent to drug trafficking; he was also one of the persons designated in the organization to store and guard, in his residence, supplies owned by the organization, primarily drug shipments, money, and weapons.• [Name 007]: member of the narco structure, whose functions included, among others, under the direction and supervision of the leader of the criminal structure, storing and guarding, in designated properties, supplies owned by the organization, primarily drug shipments and weapons; he was also responsible for performing security tasks during the drug deliveries that the criminal group made to other narco structures for the purpose of transport, supply, and acquisition of the shipments.\n\n• [Name 046] (deceased): member of the criminal structure, who, among other functions assigned by the upper echelons of the organization, was responsible for participating in the necessary actions that the narco band demanded of him for the drug trafficking trade, primarily he was one of the persons responsible for collaborating in the transport and movement of supplies owned by the criminal group, such as drug shipments and money; additionally, it was established that he held an important hierarchical rank that even allowed him to have persons under his charge, who were responsible for the sale of drugs to third parties. Likewise, in the case of ([Name 046]), he was responsible for facilitating the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in his name movable and immovable property acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to place them at the disposal and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group. • [Name 050] (Absent in this case): member of the criminal structure, who, among other functions assigned by the leader and the upper echelons of the criminal group, carried out actions such as transporting drugs owned by the organization; storing drug shipments for their subsequent distribution and commercialization; additionally, he was another of the members responsible for facilitating the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in his name movable and immovable property acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to place them at the disposal and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group; all of the foregoing without prejudice to any other action required of him in pursuit of the success of the narco-activity carried out by the organization. • [Name 016]: member of the criminal structure, who, among other functions, assisted the accused [Name 050] in the tasks of storing drug shipments owned by the narco band at her residence, additionally, she was another of the members responsible for facilitating the concealment of money from the criminal activity for the organization by registering in her name movable property acquired with the profits from the distribution and sale of drugs, to place them at the disposal and enjoyment of the members of the criminal group. • [Name 004]: Member of the criminal group, who, according to the functions entrusted to him by the hierarchy of the criminal group, was tasked with collecting and safeguarding money that originated from the illicit drug trafficking; likewise, the accused ([Name 004]) also maintained as a function within the group the execution of any logistical action entrusted to him by the higher-ranking members. • [Name 010]: Member of the criminal organization and confidant of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001], his functions within the group were oriented according to the instructions given by the hierarchy and were aimed at the security of the leader of the criminal group and the sale of narcotics to third parties. • [Name 019]: member of the criminal group, his hierarchical rank within the group was to provide collaboration to other high-ranking members of the criminal group, such is the case of the accused ([Name 046]) in the storage and sale of drugs. Furthermore, his functionality as a front man (testaferro) was accredited, by lending his name for the registration of high economic value property owned by the criminal organization led by [Name 001]. • [Name 053] (fugitive), a person who occupied the function of direct collaborator of [Name 050], in which he stood out as one of the persons in charge of the sale of narcotics, as well as the transport of money proceeds from the narco-activity to points designated for this purpose by the criminal organization.\n\n4.- During the period comprised between the months of April 2018 and October 2019, the criminal organization made up of the accused carried out a series of criminal actions in pursuit of the ultimate goal of the organization, which is drug trafficking, among which the following stand out: 4.1 As part of the operating model employed by the Criminal Organization, the accused [Name 001] designated the accused [Name 029] to carry out deliveries of narcotics to other criminal organizations rooted in the Central Valley, for which they used a Mitsubishi brand, Montero model vehicle, with license plate [Value 075], which had compartments specially designed for the transport of narcotics shipments; likewise, the administration of the money proceeds from drug trafficking was delegated to the accused [Name 026] and ([Name 004]): 4.2 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money proceeds from Drug Trafficking, on the 6th day of December 2018, they held under their custody, disposition, and storage, in the dwelling located in [...], an amount of approximately 7,289,000.00 (seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.3 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of the money proceeds from Drug Trafficking, on the 21st day of December 2018, they held under their custody, disposition, and storage, in the dwelling located in [...], an amount of approximately 4,600,000.00 (four million six hundred thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system.\n\n4.4 As part of the functions performed by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], regarding the accounting and administration of money derived from drug trafficking, as of December 31, 2018, they kept under their custody, disposition, and storage, in the dwelling located in [...], an amount of approximately 9,490,000.00 (nine million four hundred ninety thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal group and that was destined to be incorporated into the national financial system. 4.5 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group, in the period of the year 2018 and until the month of October of the year 2020, the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029] were in charge of the recruitment function of third parties, who were responsible for making deposits of money derived from drug trafficking into accounts of other members of the criminal group, as well as performing the functions of currency exchange and purchase, all with the purpose of incorporating the money derived from drug trafficking into the national banking system. 4.6 In the period from April of the year 2018 until the month of April of the year 2019, the criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001] sold, commercialized, and supplied unauthorized drugs to the criminal organization led by [Name 099] (Imprisoned in Nicaragua), which was operationally directed on Costa Rican soil by the person identified as [Name 137]. 4.7 The methodology used by both criminal organizations consisted of [Name 001] designating the accused [Name 029] to transport shipments of narcotics, using the Mitsubishi brand, Montero model vehicle, with license plate [Value 075], periodically, from the properties designated for drug storage by this criminal group, from the center of criminal operations in the León XIII housing complex, a drug that was commercialized with the organization directed by ([Name 137]), to the property located in [...], black gate on the right side, a site where the person identified as [Name 101] (member of the Organization of ([Name 137])), stored and guarded the narcotics, which the criminal group subsequently processed, dosed, and commercialized at the different drug sales points in which this criminal group was entrenched in the central valley. 4.8 This methodology for the commercialization of drugs extended over the period from the month of April of the year 2018 until April 3, 2019, the date on which operational tasks were carried out by the Drug Section of the Judicial Investigation Agency, in which the arrest of 21 people was achieved, including the operational leader of the criminal group [Name 137], as well as the seizure of 12.28 grams of shredded Cannabis Sativa, a plastic wrapper containing 0.30 grams of powdered solid Ketamine, a plastic wrapper containing 0.48 grams of Ketamine, a transparent plastic wrapper containing 1.23 grams of powdered solid Ketamine, a plastic wrapper containing 0.11 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride, and 1,437 plastic wrappers of which at least 1,078 contain an estimated net weight of 79.8 grams of Cocaine Hydrochloride fragment, drugs that were destined for their illicit commercialization at the drug sales points controlled by the organization of [Name 137]. (Facts Investigated in case file 18-000017-1219-PE). 4.9 As part of the distribution of functions of the members of the criminal group, the hierarchy of the group allowed members of the criminal organization to perform various functions ranging from surveillance and control of certain perimeters of the León XIII housing complex, to the sale of narcotics, such is the case of the accused [Name 010], who maintained these roles within the criminal group, with the authorization of the accused [Name 001]. 4.10 On November 27, 2018, as part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, he coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of a shipment of narcotics, with the accused issuing instructions through the communication channel he used, to coordinate the delivery of the drugs in exchange for an undetermined amount of money. 4.11 As part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 22, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of a quantity close to one pound of Marijuana, for a sum close to ¢130,000.00 (one hundred thirty thousand colones). 4.12 As part of the actions carried out by the accused [Name 010], in the locality of San José, Tibás, León XIII, on December 5, 2018, the accused [Name 010] coordinated with a person of unknown identity the sale of at least one kilogram of Cocaine Hydrochloride for an amount close to ¢5,100,000.00 (five million one hundred thousand colones). 4.13 As part of the distribution of functions of the members of the criminal group, the hierarchy of the group allowed, in the period of the year 2018 until the month of October of the year 2020, members of the criminal organization to perform various functions aimed at the possession and storage of supplies ranging from drugs, money, and firearms; these actions were delegated by the leader of the criminal group [Name 001] to the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], and for such purposes they used the dwelling located in [...], and for this storage action the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.14 On November 21, 2019, the accused ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions of possession and storage of drugs they performed for the criminal group, kept under their possession and storage a shipment of narcotics, which was destined for its commercialization with third parties, clients of the criminal organization they formed. 4.15 On May 19, 2019, the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed and stored at least two kilograms of Cocaine Hydrochloride, in the property located at the dwelling situated in [...], a drug that was destined for its sale to third parties.\n\n4.16 On June 13, 2019, the accused [Name 022], ([Name 013]) and his mother [Name 015], as part of the functions delegated by the hierarchy of the criminal group, possessed, guarded, and stored a stash of narcotics in the property located at the dwelling situated in [...], drugs that were intended for sale to third parties. 4.17 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] assigned the accused ([Name 046]) to, during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, carry out functions such as the sale and distribution of drugs in the sector of the León XIII housing complex, specifically marijuana, as well as to fulfill a function as a front man (testaferro) in the registration of vehicles owned by the narco gang. Likewise, the accused [Name 046] delegated the function of possession, storage, and sale of drugs to the accused [Name 019], who carried out drug sales to third-party consumers from his dwelling in the same León XIII housing complex and who also participated in the criminal group as a front man (testaferro) in the registration of high-economic-value assets. 4.18 On July 3, 2019, at 12:38 hours, the accused [Name 046] made arrangements using his cell phone for the sale of a stash of narcotics to a person identified by the alias “[Name 249]”. 4.19 On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, the raid, search, and seizure (allanamiento, registro y secuestro) proceedings were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the accused [Name 019] at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 019]; the following result was obtained: - 199.48 grams of flowering tops of the cannabis sativa plant, a drug that ([Name 019]) marketed to third parties at the property where he resided. - An HS-K brand electronic scale, gray and black, with its respective charger. - A total amount of cash in the sum of ¢359,000.00 (three hundred fifty-nine thousand colones), money generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused ([Name 019]) as a direct collaborator of [Name 046]. - Six cell phones with accessories described as follows: a white Samsung Duos brand cell phone, with IMEI number 352550071157109 and 352551071157107 with a Kolbi SIM card numbered 89506010919211755, a black LG brand cell phone with IMEI 357137076226645 with its respective battery and cover with a piece of paper attached with tape bearing the number 71-6583-24, a black Huawei brand cell phone, IMEI 863137041709912, with SIM number 8950604201507695102F and a micro SD 8 GB, a black Apple brand iPhone model cell phone, IMEI 355315082004465, a white Apple brand iPhone model cell phone with a Movistar SIM card #8950604102001203204, a black Samsung brand cell phone, with external IMEI 354260112884186 and second IMEI 354261112884184, a 32 GB Kingston memory card, and a Movistar SIM 8950604201002368269f. 4.20 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] assigned the accused [Name 050] (absent) to, during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, carry out functions such as the distribution and sale of drugs in the sector of the León XIII housing complex, specifically Marijuana. Likewise, the accused [Name 050] delegated the function of possession, storage, and sale of drugs to his sister, the accused ([Name 016]), who carried out drug sales to third-party consumers from her dwelling in the same León XIII housing complex and who also participated in the criminal group as a front man (testaferro) in the registration of high-economic-value assets. 4.21 On December 5, 2019, at 16:52 hours, as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Name 016]) kept under her custody and possession in her dwelling, located in [...], a stash of narcotics, an action that was carried out in assistance and collaboration with her brother [Name 050]. 4.22 On December 24, 2019, at 14:58 hours, as part of her role within the criminal group, in the function of storing narcotics, the accused ([Name 016]) kept under her custody and possession in her dwelling, located in [...], a stash of narcotics, an action that was directly ordered by her brother, the accused [Name 050]. 4.23 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] recruited the accused [Name 007] to, during the period from April 2018 until October 2020, carry out functions pertaining to the logistics of the criminal organization, which ranged from ensuring the security of the criminal group through the monitoring of security cameras, to the storage of money obtained from drug trafficking in his dwelling, actions for which the accused received financial compensation as payment. 4.24 On November 1, 2019, in [...], the owned dwelling where the accused [Name 007] resided, as part of the actions delegated by the criminal organization regarding the storage of narcotics, he kept under his custody and possession a stash of narcotics, which was intended for commercialization with third parties. 4.25 On November 11, 2019, in [...], the owned dwelling where the accused [Name 007] resided, as part of the actions delegated by the criminal organization regarding the storage of narcotics, he kept under his custody and possession at least one kilogram of cocaine hydrochloride, which was commercialized with a subject identified by the alias “[Name 187]”, an action that was supervised by the accused [Name 161].\n\n4.26 As part of the functions delegated by the members of the criminal group and the distribution of functions and roles, the accused [Name 001] and [Name 029] recruited the accused [Name 004] so that, in the period from the month of April 2018 to the month of October 2020, he would carry out logistics functions for the criminal organization, which were entrusted with the security of the criminal group through surveillance, security, and the storage of money resulting from drug trafficking, actions for which the accused received financial remuneration as payment. 4.27 On September 1, 2019, the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004], via telephone, to appear at a banking institution in the Plaza Lincoln Shopping Center in Moravia and to make deposits of money resulting from the trafficking and sale of narcotics into third-party accounts, money that was also intended to be introduced into the national financial system through the acquisition of high-value assets. 4.28 On February 13, 2020, at 19:01 hours, the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004], via telephone, to collect the money generated from the narcotics trafficking activity at various points in the León XIII housing complex, as well as from the illegal money lending activity carried out by the criminal group to third parties, with money derived from narcotics trafficking. 4.29 On February 13, 2020, at 20:59 hours, the accused [Name 029] gave instructions to [Name 004], via telephone, to collect the money generated from the narcotics trafficking activity at various points in the León XIII housing complex, as well as from the illegal informal money lending activity carried out by the criminal group to third parties, with money derived from the trafficking and sale of narcotics. [...] 4.31 The criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001], in the period between February 18, 2019, and April 24, 2019, used the property located at [...] for the storage and medium-scale commercialization of drugs owned by the organization to third-party consumers who appeared at the location; it was also used as one of the sites from which the criminal structure possessed security supplies and technological equipment in an effort to keep the areas under the group's control under electronic surveillance, a property and functions that were in charge of the accused persons [Name 293] and [Name 294] (separate proceedings are being pursued against them). 4.32 On April 24, 2019, the raid, search, and seizure procedures were executed at the property located at [...]; which resulted in the arrest of the group member identified as [Name 294], who, in accordance with the functions assigned by the upper echelons of the criminal organization, was dedicated to drug sales activity during the period already indicated, and at the time of his arrest, he was at the cited property storing and safeguarding two .38 caliber revolver-type firearms, 6 communication radios, at least 5 cell phones, and a closed-circuit surveillance system, articles used to provide security to the rest of the members of the narco structure; he was also safeguarding the sum of 2,356,450.00 colones, money derived from the drug sales activity entrusted to him. (facts charged in investigation process 19-000023-0622-PE). 4.33 In the period between the 3rd and the 17th of May 2019, the criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001], in accordance with the operational model for drug commercialization, designated the accused [Name 029] to carry out the transfer of narcotics caches from the criminal group's operations center in San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, to the property located at [...], which was used by the persons identified as [Name 102], [Name 107], [Name 104], and [Name 105] for the storage, dosage, and distribution of drugs for unauthorized use. 4.34 On May 16, 2019, at 00:20 hours, the accused [Name 029], following the instructions given by the hierarchy of the criminal group and in adherence to the operational model used for drug trafficking and commerce, transferred a cache of narcotics from San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, Alameda las Tennis, using a Mitsubishi Montero-style vehicle, license plate [Value 075], to the property located at [...], a place where the accused ([Name 004]) entered for a few minutes and subsequently withdrew. 4.35 On May sixteenth, two thousand nineteen, at 18:51 hours, at [...], the accused [Name 106], [Name 107], and [Name 108], stored, prepared, processed, and possessed drugs for unauthorized use for the purpose of sale, specifically, cocaine hydrochloride and crack cocaine base. 4.36 As such, that same day, May sixteenth of the year two thousand nineteen, around 18:51 hours, the accused person [Name 105] arrived at the dwelling under investigation where the narcotics supplied by ([Name 004]) were stored, aboard a black Toyota RAV-4 vehicle, metal plates [Value 076], from which he descended and was handed, by the accused ([Name 107]), a bag containing two thousand five hundred twenty-one plastic wrappers with fragments of cocaine and two plastic wrappers with a total of 200.27 grams of solid powder containing cocaine; he proceeded to leave the site, at which moment he was approached by officers of the Judicial Investigation Organization (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), who carried out his arrest and the seizure of the drugs he was transporting. 4.37 Due to the foregoing, on May seventeenth, two thousand nineteen, at 09:40 hours, a raid was carried out on the dwelling where the accused [Name 029] had delivered the narcotics, a location where the following were found: utensils characteristic of the commercialization, processing, and preparation of psychotropic substances, such as; a black and silver digital scale, plastic wrappers, sodium bicarbonate, small blades, as well as the seizure of fifty plastic wrappers with fragments of cocaine, a bag with residues of fragments of cocaine, and two wrappers with 2004.16 grams of compact solid containing cocaine, drugs that were stored and intended to be commercialized with third parties, and which were supplied by the criminal organization led by [Name 001]; likewise, the seizure was achieved of one million four hundred eighty thousand seventy-five colones (1,480,075.00), cash in small denominations, derived from the drug trafficking activity, and the arrest of [Name 106], [Name 107], and [Name 108] (Facts investigated in summary proceeding 19-014179-0042-PE).\n\n4.38 The accused [Name 001], designated the person identified as [Name 268] alias [Name 269] (now deceased) to manage the drug sale points located in San José, Tibás, León XIII, Garabito sector, alameda 1; this methodology was used by the criminal group in the time frame between August 1, 2019, and November 6, 2019. 4.39 As part of the actions inherent to the drug trafficking activity carried out by [Name 268] in his capacity as manager, the criminal group used the following properties as drug sale points, for the sale and distribution of narcotics: - [...]. - [...]. - [...]. - [...]. 4.40 Likewise, as part of the operational model employed by the Criminal Organization led by [Name 001], and which were delegated by [Name 268], the actions of possession, storage, dosing, and sale of drugs were carried out by the following persons [Name 296], [Name 297], [Name 298], [Name 299], [Name 300], [Name 301], [Name 302], [Name 303], and [Name 304], who carried out these actions in the period from August 1, 2019, until November 6, 2019. 4.41 On November 6, 2019, at 4:10 p.m., the raids were carried out on the homes used by the criminal group for the storage, dosing, distribution, and sale of drugs, which resulted in the arrest of [Name 303] and [Name 298] outside the home located at [...], in possession of three doses of cocaine hydrochloride base “crack”. The defendant [Name 299] was arrested at [...], in possession of scales, a grinder, and wrappers for the preparation and dosing of illicit substances. The accused [Name 297] was arrested at the home located at [...], in possession of sixteen wrappers of marijuana, which he kept in the drain of the laundry room; likewise, the seizure of firearms, documents related to drug trafficking activity, documents regarding the transfer of properties used for the storage and sale of drugs, as well as an amount of ¢600,000.00 (six hundred thousand colones in cash) from drug trafficking activity and a closed-circuit surveillance system with security cameras was achieved. The narcotics seized and marketed during the investigation period were supplied by the criminal organization led by the accused [Name 001]. (Facts investigated in case 19-000160-0622-PE). 4.42 The accused [Name 001], designated as one of the trusted persons in the hierarchy of the criminal group the defendant [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” (absent from this proceeding), for the purpose of managing and administering the actions of possession, storage, sale, and distribution of the Marijuana marketed by the criminal group in the period from January 2019 until October 13, 2020; likewise, ([Name 016]), had the role of supervising the collection of money proceeds from the narcotic sale activity, a material action that was delegated by him to lower-ranking members of the criminal group, who were in charge of collecting these supplies at the drug sale points controlled and managed by the group and subsequently transferring them to safe houses designated by the hierarchy of the drug gang. 4.43. Without specifying an exact date, but before 10:20 p.m. on December 5, 2019, the defendant [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” (absent from this proceeding), issued instructions to the accused person [Name 053] (a fugitive), a member of the criminal group, to collect a total amount of cash in the sum of ¢1,902,600.00 (one million nine hundred two thousand six hundred colones), proceeds from the narcotic sale activity carried out by the criminal group in San José, Tibás, León XIII. 4.44. On December 5, 2019, at 10:20 p.m., in San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, Garabito Sector, Alameda 1, on the public road, Public Force officers, who had knowledge of illicit activities carried out in the sector, approached the accused [Name 053] (a fugitive), who possessed and was transporting a green plastic bag containing inside a total amount of cash in the sum of ¢1,902,600.00 (one million nine hundred two thousand six hundred colones), proceeds from the narcotic sale activity carried out in that sector by the criminal group, as well as the following jewelry: Three rings, a plaque-shaped pendant, a bracelet, and two chains, all of gold, with a value of four million three hundred eight thousand four hundred colones, jewelry that was acquired with money from drug trafficking by [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” (absent from this proceeding). Money and jewelry that were seized by the Public Force officers. 4.45 As a result of the preceding fact, [Name 050] alias “[Name 065]” (absent from this proceeding), with the aim of recovering the money seized from the drug trafficking activity and concealing its illicit origin, on the same day, December 5, 2019, designated the person identified as [Name 305], to appear at San José, Tibás, Ciudadela León XIII, Garabito Sector, Alameda 1, on the public road and to justify, through the use of a copy of a deed certification, that the total amount of cash in the sum of ¢1,902,600.00 (one million nine hundred two thousand six hundred colones), was the product of a loan granted by the Corporation El Sendero del Puma S.A, legal identification number [Value 207].\n\n5.- During the investigation period between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, the Criminal Organization comprised of the investigated individuals [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016] and [Name 019], as a result of the significant illicit profits generated from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transfer assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or the ownership thereof; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the national drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001]. 5.1 In the period from the year 2018 until October 13, 2020, the accused [Name 001], as a result of the significant amounts of money generated from drug trafficking, invested the money generated from this illicit activity in the property built and used as a residence by the same accused [Name 001], in San José, Tibás, León XIII, Garabito, Alameda I, on farms number [Value 014], [Value 015], [Value 016], [Value 017] and [Value 018], which are registered in the name of third parties, a residence which maintains an economic value of ₡535,886,905.72 (five hundred thirty-five million eight hundred eighty-six thousand nine hundred five colones and seventy-two céntimos). This residence was found to be in use and enjoyment by the accused during the indicated period [...] 5.4 In the period between the month of January 2018 and October 13, 2020, the accused [Name 001] designated the accused [Name 030] alias “[Name 241]” to carry out the actions necessary for the acquisition of high economic value assets, with money from the illicit drug trade, and [Name 030] was also delegated the recruitment of third parties to facilitate their name and identity to register vehicles and assets in their name and thus cover up the illicit origin, assets which were intended for the use and enjoyment of the accused [Name 001] and other members of the criminal group […] 5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of assets acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030] carried out the necessary steps for the purchase and registry inscription of the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado style TX-L, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this asset at the agency Purdy Motor S.A in the amount of ₡44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was designated by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group [Name 001] […] 5.8 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value assets, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser, style prado, with a value of ₡13,240,000.00 (thirteen million two hundred forty thousand colones), which was registered with the purpose of concealing the illicit origin derived from drug trafficking in the name of the corporation Vanguard Cleaning RC S.A, represented by [Name 246] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process. 5.9 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value assets, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the vehicle make Mitsubishi, style Sportero, license plate [Value 167], with armor-type security devices, which maintains a value of ₡23,462,250.00 (twenty-three million four hundred sixty-two thousand two hundred fifty colones), which was registered with the purpose of concealing the illicit origin derived from drug trafficking in the name of [Name 236] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process. 5.10 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value assets and the concealment to divert their illicit origin, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the vehicle make Yamaha, style motorcycle, model WR450F, with license plate [Value 168], which was registered with the purpose of concealing the illicit origin derived from drug trafficking in the name of [Name 236] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process […] 5.13 During the period between the month of January 2018 and the month of October 2020, the accused person identified as [Name 050], with the purpose of inserting, diversifying, and stratifying the money derived from drug trafficking, recruited his sister, the accused ([Name 016]), to provide her function as a front person in order to conceal the illicit origin of personal property, such as high-end vehicles, which were acquired by the criminal group with money derived from drug trafficking, an activity of which the accused ([Name 016]) had full knowledge. Among the vehicles registered in the name of the accused are the following: Vehicle make Volkswagen, style Jetta MK6, license plate [Value 032], which maintains a value of 9,022,000.00 (nine million twenty-two thousand colones), vehicle make BMW, style X5, with a value of $37,930.00 (thirty-seven thousand nine hundred thirty dollars), money that was paid in cash at the agency Bavarian Motors CR S.A by the accused on September 6, 2019, and a vehicle make Ford, style Ranger, license plate [Value 034], valued at the sum of ₡15,000,000.00 (fifteen million colones). 5.14 During the period between the month of January 2018 and the month of October 2020, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001], with the purpose of inserting, diversifying, and stratifying the money derived from drug trafficking, delegated to the accused [Name 046] (deceased) the function as a front person in order to conceal the illicit origin of personal property at the registry level, among them the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado T, model 2014, color beige, with license plate [Value 035], which was acquired for the amount of ₡24,710,000.00 in the month of April 2019, a vehicle that was designated for the use of the members of the criminal group and the material execution of illicit activities.\n\n6.- On October 13, 2020, starting at 06:00 hours, the proceedings of raid, search, and seizure were carried out at the different points controlled by the criminal organization, achieving the arrest of the defendants [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 046], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019], also seizing evidence that directly links them to the charged acts and which is set forth below: 6.1 In the home of the accused [Nombre 001], located in [...], the following evidence was located:\n\n• Three watches of apparent brand TOUS, of different colors and shapes, the first one Gold rose color, with the number on its back 700350130, in its pink packaging, the second with a pink bracelet with the number on its back 700350150 in its pink packaging, the third with a white bracelet with the number on its back 800350750, in its green packaging. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • An apparent gold chain, approximately 54 centimeters long, with an apparent gold pendant in the shape of a cross with apparent precious stones inlaid on its four sides. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A pistol-type firearm, Glock brand, style 17G4, caliber 9x19, black and brown color, serial number BEZC912, with three black magazines and fifty-one gold-colored rounds, twenty of them with the legend on their base \"A USA 9mm LUGER\" and thirty-one with the legend on their base \"S&B 9x9 18\". Used for the protection and development of the criminal activity. • A firearm, silver color with a black grip, Taurus brand, apparent caliber 9mm, with the number TRC82739, two black magazines, one round with the legend on its base FC LUGER 9mm, eight rounds with the legend on their base S&B 9x19 18, seven rounds with the legend on their base BLAZER LUGER 9mm, fourteen rounds with the legend on their base R-P 9mm LUGER. Used for the protection and development of the criminal activity. • A firearm, pistol type, black color, Glock brand, apparent caliber 9x19, with the number BMKC172, two black magazines, Glock brand, one round with the legend on its base SIG 9mm LUGER, one round with the legend on its base S&B 9X19 18, four rounds with the legend on their base WIN 9mm LUGER, six rounds with the legend on their base GFL 9mm LUGER, twenty-two rounds with the legend on their base R-P 9mm LUGER. Used for the protection and development of the criminal activity. • A pistol-type firearm, Smith & Wesson brand, with the number MRJ4172, green with black color, one black magazine Smith & Wesson brand, fifteen rounds with the legend on their base horneady 40 S&W. Used for the protection and development of the criminal activity. • Three hundred sixty-five gold-colored rounds, with the legend on their base R-P 9mm LUGER, forty-one gold-colored rounds with the legend on their base 25 auto Aguila. Used for the protection and development of the criminal group. • An Apple brand cellphone, Iphone style, light blue color, IMEI number 353062105721750, with Movistar brand SIM card, number 8950604201907465407F. • A Samsung brand cellphone, black color, model SM-G532M, series R58K70876FZ, IMEI number 352606/09/573952/8, with Kolbi brand SIM card number 9506010918112643722. • An Apple brand cellphone, Iphone style, black color, model A1778 IMEI number 353806086360842, with Movistar brand SIM card number 8950604101002367034F. • A Sony brand cellphone, white color, Xperia style, model E6553, without micro SD card, with Claro brand SIM card, without visible number. • A Samsung brand cellphone, series R58J579Z9XW, IMEI number 359122/22/08378640/9, black color with a broken screen, with SIM card, Claro brand with the number 8950603017838151283F. • A Black Berry brand cellphone, white and black color, with the number 354359060757376, all of the above in fair condition. • An Apple brand cellphone, Phone style, white color, IMEI 357280096742017, with Claro brand SIM card number 8950603019895108990F, in fair condition, its functioning is unknown. • An Apple brand cellphone, gray color, IMEI number 353912109800259, with Movistar brand SIM card with the number 8950604002001544745. • A HUAWEI brand cellphone, silver color, model ELS-NX9, with IMEI numbers 860996047643018 and 860996047651037, with Claro brand SIM card with the number 8950603017850578231F. • An Apple brand cellphone, Iphone style, black color, IMEI number 356454108524850, with Movistar brand SIM card with the number 8950604202003547387. • An Apple brand tablet, Ipad style, silver color, model A1822, series GHCV2MZ5HLF9, in fair condition. • A black cardboard box containing an apple watch nike brand watch, series 6, white color with its respective charger, a black box containing a white bracelet, its functioning is unknown. • A black cardboard box containing a Samsung brand cellphone, Note 20 Ultra style, rose gold color, IMEI number 359646/20/310481/2, black earphones with its charger, its functioning is unknown. • A Samsung brand cellphone black color, with IMEI numbers 355875/11/115002/1 and 355901/11/115002/5, with its respective charger and earphones. • A cash amount of ¢3,156,000.00 (three million one hundred fifty-six thousand colones) and 3247.00 (three thousand two hundred forty-seven dollars) money and 30.00 Euros (Thirty euros) product of drug trafficking activity. • A black bulletproof vest without visible brand or number, in poor condition. • A laptop computer, HP brand, silver color, without visible number or series, in fair condition, its functioning is unknown. • A black video and photo camera GoPro brand, without visible numbers, its functioning is unknown. • Six sheets with banking documentation and referring to the vehicle license plate [Valor 056] and municipal payments, a black spring notebook with the logo of a yellow vehicle with various annotations of interest, twenty-four sheets referring to weapon carry permits and photographs of drugs, money, and weapons, a USB device of 16 GB, SP silicon power brand green color. • A white folder with red from Purdy Motor, containing a sheet from Ministerio de Justicia y Paz, in the name of [Nombre 081], two sheets from CAFSA, dated 11/12/2019, a sheet from Purdy Motor about a Fortuner vehicle Toyota Brand, a purple folder containing five sheets from the Municipalidad de Santo Domingo de Heredia, dated 12/27/2019, five sheets about product information, five carbone sheets, all in the name of [Nombre 306], a sheet with information on jacuzzi-type bathtubs. • A sedan vehicle, four doors, Toyota brand, Corolla style, year 2016, silver color, with metal plates with the number [Valor 053], with Chassis number 5YFBUVVHEOGP336585, with bodywork and paint in fair condition presenting a scratch on the right side rearview mirror, with RTV and marchamo up to date. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • An all-terrain automobile, four doors, Toyota brand, Land Cruiser Prado style, Beige color, with chassis number JTEBH3FJX0K05006, model 2011, with circulation permit [Valor 024] in fair condition. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Pick Up type vehicle, Mitsubishi brand, L200 sportero style, model 2015, silver color, with chassis number MMBJYKB4OFD001137, circulation permit [Valor 025], in fair condition. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Honda brand motorcycle, model XR190CT, black color, frame number LALMD4392J3060579, engine number MD43E3002432, metal plate [Valor 026]. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Yamaha brand motorcycle, model WR450F, blue color, frame number CJ17C001194, engine number J333E001195, metal plate [Valor 028]. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking.\n\n• A Yamaha motorcycle, model WR450F, blue, frame (marco) number CJ25W002530, engine number J344E003134, license plate [Valor 027]. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. 6.2 Likewise, regarding the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the residence of the accused [Nombre 001], on October 13, 2020, in San José, Tibás, León XIII, alameda #1 south sector, second entrance on the right, corner house, cement, four plants, black with white, the following household goods, acquired with money derived from drug trafficking, were seized: • A stationary metal exercise machine, gray with the legend TTPro Training Station. • A black stationary exercise machine, Everlast brand, with chain accessories and a punching bag. • An elliptical metal bicycle, gray, with the legend FDC19, dual front driver Elliptical concept. • A natural wood King-size bed, with its respective La Coruna brand mattress. • A natural wood King-size bed, with its respective La Coruna brand mattress. • A black wood King-size bed, with decorated upholstery, with its La Coruna brand mattress. • An 86-inch LG brand flat-screen television, series 902RMJF1S100. • A black, wood, double bed (cama matrimonial), with its respective La Coruna brand mattress. 6.3 Regarding the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in [...], a residence owned by the accused [Nombre 001], the following result was obtained: • An LG brand flat-screen television, with a silver frame (marco), LB5800-513, series 408 RMHRLP-721, a second Hitachi brand screen, black, model 65R80, series number TH8EL11811. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Hitachi brand flat-screen television, black, LCD, TV, model 65R80, series TH8E111848, with its respective remote control. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black and white, model SM-J500M/DS, with IMEI 352137/07/871127/6, IMEI 352138/07/871127/4, and Movistar SIM card 8950604001910486717F. Used for the development of narco-activity. 6.4 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in Heredia, Santo Domingo, Residencial [Nombre 056], 75 meters west of the Santo Domingo Clinic, a residence owned by the accused [Nombre 001], the following result was obtained: • A total amount of cash in the sum of ₡84,000 (eighty-four thousand colones) and $305.00 (three hundred five dollars), money generated from drug trafficking activity. • An ASUS brand laptop, model GL7040, series number K4NRCV04E9811, with its respective base with fans and cables. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A black desktop computer, with serial number 1616C114500283, also a black monitor, MSI brand, and its respective power and connection cables. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • Three video game chairs, one green and black with the legend Scorpion, another black and yellow with the legend \"Igaming,\" and the other black and red, with the legend \"Gamdias.\" Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A three-door refrigerator, LG brand, series MEZ66414020, silver, Inverter Linear model, with dents on all sides. Acquired with money derived from drug trafficking. • A microbus-type vehicle, Hyundai brand, H1 style, brown, circulation plates [Valor 029], engine number D4CEND305843 and chassis number KMJWA37KBEU579386, acquired with money derived from drug trafficking and intended for the development of the criminal organization. 6.5 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in [...], a residence used by the accused [Nombre 001] as a safe house, the following result was obtained, corresponding to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, gray, with a Claro brand SIM card numbered 8950603018872571857, and an Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, gold and white, with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010718111699299. • An Apple brand telephone, iPhone model, gold, with a Claro brand SIM card numbered 8950603019905557004F. • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, silver, with a SIM card bearing the letter M, numbered 8950604201911583807F. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gold, with IMEI numbers 359271070510940 and 359272070510948. • A silver iPad, model A2069, serial: DMPD905VPV1T. • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone model, pink, with a Claro brand SIM card, numbered 8950603016821303919F. • An HP brand laptop, black, model 15-DA0006LA with its respective charger. • A TCL brand television screen, gray, model 65P1USI, with its respective TCL brand remote control. • An LG brand television screen, black, model 60UK6200SA, series 906RMAQ3J248. • A ZIF brand television screen, black, model Z55Y065, series number K-16050. • A HAIER brand television screen, black, model LE55b8500DA. • A SANKEY brand television screen, black, model Cled 5051D3, with its respective control. • A TCL brand television screen, black, model 65P1USI, with its respective remote control. 6.6 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in [...], a residence used by the accused [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], and ([Nombre 013]) as a domicile and a collection center for weapons, drugs, and money derived from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, IMEI number 866223030330196, Sim card without visible branding numbered 8950604402808424655 and a Samsung brand micro SD card. Used for the development of criminal activity. • A Samsung brand cell phone, blue, with IMEI number 357716087681490, a white Sim card without visible branding numbered 8950604401712850476F, and an 8GB black micro SD card. Used for the development of criminal activity. • Photographically recorded, a Glock brand firearm case with adhesive tape where the name [Nombre 022] is observed; the weapon model is a Glock 17, 9x19 caliber, series BEZC912. • Photographically recorded, eight radio intercoms with six headset bases and chargers. • Photographically recorded, a bulletproof vest with no visible brand or series. • Photographically recorded, a Banco Nacional digital signature card in the name of [Nombre 022] and three weapon carry permits in the name of [Nombre 022]. • Photographically recorded, a firearm case, Glock brand, model Glock 17, 9x19 caliber, series BMKC172. • A black signal device with the legend \"4T-006,\" series 021635, with its respective charger, five antennas, and a vehicle current charger, all inside a box. • A bank deposit receipt for 354,600 colones, depositor [Nombre 022], document number 14121040. Dollar purchase receipt for $600, colones to pay 354,600, document number 14105387. • A pistol-type firearm, Beretta brand, filed serial number, with the number 666 stamped on the barrel, with a black magazine containing 15 unfired 9mm caliber cartridges. • Three hundred eighty-nine unfired 7.62 x 39 caliber cartridges. • A pistol-type firearm, 9x19 caliber, black, Taurus brand, series TF056301, with a black magazine and 16 unfired 9mm caliber cartridges. • A pistol-type firearm, 9x19 caliber, black, Glock brand, series PFA677, with a black magazine with a 16-cartridge capacity and two black magazines each with a 30-cartridge capacity, containing 21 unfired 9x19 caliber cartridges. • A pistol-type firearm, 9mm caliber, black, Beretta brand, series 1108590, a black magazine for 15 cartridges containing 15 unfired cartridges, and a sound suppressor. • Three hundred twenty unfired 5.56 caliber cartridges, 3 magazines, and one extra-capacity magazine. • A .40 caliber pistol magazine with a 28-cartridge capacity containing 13 unfired .40 caliber cartridges. • A steel plate or die with a pattern of circles on the bottom. • Five hundred twenty-dollar American bills for a total of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars), money that was the product of the criminal activity carried out by the criminal group, which was intended for insertion into the national financial market, and which was stored at that property by the accused [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], and ([Nombre 013]). 6.7 Regarding the results of the search, registration, and seizure procedures carried out at the property located in [...], used by the defendant [Nombre 161] (currently a fugitive), the following result was obtained, corresponding to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone with two IMEIs, No. 1:869221041112840, IMEI No. 2:869221041148851, containing a Movistar SIM No. 8950604101007632262F, and a Samsung brand cell phone with IMEIs 359207090408582 and 359208090408580, containing a Movistar chip with number 8950604301611229964F. • A Samsung brand cell phone with IMEI 3534630852683350, with a Kolbi brand SIM card No. 8950601011711206506. • Four Banco Nacional receipts numbered 06155140, 06145571, 06177537, and 06157824, regarding money deposits. • A Toyota brand vehicle, ECHO model, gold, with metallic circulation plate [Valor 045], Sedan, chassis number JTDBT1235Y0005400, used by the criminal group for the development of narco-activity. • A Yamaha brand motorcycle, black and gray, with metallic circulation plate [Valor 081], frame (marco) number ME1RG2659J2003276, used by the criminal group for the development of narco-activity.\n\n6.8 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 026] and [Name 029], the following result was obtained, and they correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A black and pink notebook with the legend Femme, with the brand on the upper right edge \"El líder\" with a total of (98) pages containing notes of various accounts. • A gray cellular telephone, brand Huawei, model Huawei MLA-L02, with no visible IMEI. • A black cellular telephone, brand Nokia, with IMEI number 352905101877359, with a SIM card, brand Movistar, with the number 8950604001911308753F. • A total amount of cash money of ¢323,000.00 colones (Three hundred twenty-three thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused. • A money receipt to third parties from the Ministerio de Justicia y Paz, CAI Vilma Curling Rivera, in the name of [Name 029], with an adhesive sheet bearing the name of [Name 155]. • An Apple brand cellular telephone, model iPhone, color pink, IMEI 355734070780270, with a SIM card with no visible brand, numbered 8950604302807581416; additionally, a Samsung brand cellular telephone, color black, was collected, with IMEI 355286105100636, IMEI #2 355286105100644, with a Movistar SIM card numbered 8950604001907110389F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand, 4GB. • A Huawei brand cellular telephone, color black, IMEI 866368040451035, with a Claro brand SIM card numbered 3950603018885857562F, with a micro SD memory card, Adata brand, 4GB. 6.9 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 030] and [Name 033], the following result was obtained, and they correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand telephone, color blue, with IMEI #1: 869892042128470, IMEI #2: 869892042148486, with Claro brand SIM card numbered 8950603019910340834F. • A Samsung brand telephone, color blue, with IMEI number 359770/10/853192/7, with Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112543185. A Samsung brand telephone, color red, with IMEI number 359770/10/648523/3 with a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112767917. • A Samsung brand telephone, color black, with IMEI #1: 359060/09/653228/9, IMEI #2: 359061/09/653228f7, with SIM card numbered 8950604302809752916. • An iPhone brand cellular telephone, color black, with a broken screen, with no serial number or visible IMEI, with Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506010919112612634. • A total amount of cash money of $517 (Five hundred seventeen dollars) and ¢705,000.00 (seven hundred five thousand colones), money that was generated from drug trafficking activity. • A Samsung brand Tablet, color gray, model BT-PS100, with IMEI number 354077/05122539819. A Samsung brand telephone, color black, containing a Kolbi brand SIM card numbered 9506011113211672736 and a 4GB SD card, Kingston brand. • An iPhone brand telephone, color black, with IMEI number 012851001506544, without a SIM card. A Samsung brand telephone, color black, with IMEI number 355878105/66783512, with a Movistar brand SIM card numbered 8950604202704339761. A Nokia brand telephone, color black, model N8-00. • A USB storage device, ADATA brand, 16GB. • A USB storage device, Kingston brand DTSE-9, 16GB. • A USB storage device, Sandisk brand, 8GB. A USB storage device, Kingston brand Datatravelier, 2GB. • An 8GB microSD card. Two Adata brand microSD cards, 8GB each. • A Kingston 2GB microSD card. • A Kingston brand 16GB microSD card. • A Samsung brand 16GB microSD card. • A Radioshack brand 128GB microSD card. • A portable hard drive, Adata Superior SH02 brand, color black with white. • A GPS detector, model k18, color black, with its respective charger and antenna. • An iPhone brand cellular telephone, color gray, with IMEI number 359234060064211 with Movistar brand SIM card numbered 8950644027401423570. • A flat screen, Samsung brand, color black, with serial number 086M3CBMA08590E, with its respective wall mount. • A curved television screen, Samsung brand, color black, with serial number 07CU3CCDK809440D, with its respective wall mount. • Two hundred four 9.9 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. Thirty-one 0.25 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. Two hundred 5.56 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. Thirty-three 0.40 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. One hundred 7.62x39 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. Four 7.7x26 millimeter caliber rounds of ammunition. • A Toyota brand vehicle, Land Cruiser Prado TXL style, all-terrain, year 2020, color white, vehicle license plate [Value 179], with VIN number JTEBH3FJ1L5105166, engine number 1KDB039378, with its respective documents (certificate of title, hoja de revisión Técnica and right of circulation). • A money receipt number 0355856, dated 04/29/2020, in the name of [Name 033] for an amount of fifty dollars, from the company Purdy Motor S.A.; 6.10 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in [...], used by the accused [Name 050], the following result was obtained, and they correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • Photographically fixed only: several transparent plastic bags of regular size, two packages of transparent plastic bags, as well as supplies for drug dosing. • Ten unfired rounds of ammunition, gold colored with the legend \"A\", sixty-one unfired 9mm rounds of ammunition, nine unfired rounds of ammunition with the legend \"Aguila 38 SPL\", twenty-seven unfired rounds of ammunition with the legend \"40 S&VV\", five unfired rounds of ammunition with the legend \"357 SIG RP\". • Photographically fixed: two electric scales, one black and one white, a box of transparent plastic bags, an identity card in the name of [Name 051]. • A notebook with the legend \"Scribe\" with various notes (14 pages). • Three Apple brand cellular telephones, model iPhone S, the first with IMEI 358571073190927, the second IMEI 355765074963665, the third 355432070735747, and a Samsung brand telephone with IMEI #1 358516/08/883589/10, IMEI #2 358517/08/883589/8, all without SIM card or memory card. • A firearm, pistol type, Smith & Wesson brand, series DWB8446, with its respective magazine and thirteen unfired rounds of ammunition with the legend 9mm Luger RP. • A white shirt which contains a ballistic protection vest. • Thirteen pages corresponding to an offer and advance payment for the purchase of a BMW X5 vehicle and eight money receipts from bank transactions. • A total amount of cash money of one million eight hundred eight thousand five hundred colones, product of the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused. • A gold-colored chain, with red and blue inlays, two gold-colored slave-type bracelets, three gold-colored rings, a gold-colored pendant with the legend \"Red Bull\", all of the foregoing apparently gold. • Five watches, the first Fossil brand, color black, the second Tissot brand, color gold, the third Nixon brand, with camouflage print, the fourth Diesel brand, color gold, and the fifth Rolex brand, color silver and gold. • Photographically fixed: three vehicle keys with electronic control, the first corresponds to a Volkswagen vehicle with registration [Value 169], the second and third controls correspond to a BMW vehicle and an identity card in the name of number [Name 050] [Value 170]. • An Apple brand telephone, iPhone model, with IMEI 357264092904086, without SIM card. • A Samsung brand telephone with IMEI 3544621035 64542 and IMEI two 354463103564540, with Movistar SIM card 8950604201907428843F and a 64 GB memory card. • An Apple brand telephone, iPhone model, with IMEI 354453062996809, with SIM card with no visible brand 8950604402801689676, a Huawei brand telephone with 867265037177269 without memory card or SIM card, all in poor condition. • Seventeen transparent plastic wrappers of regular size containing apparent marijuana, all of them vacuum sealed. Drug that was intended to be commercialized by the criminal group. • A recorder, Q SEE SCAN VIEW brand, series MAC 0018AE52DE8A, with its respective HDMI and power cable. • A BMW brand vehicle, X5 style, year 2004, plate [Value 049], which was acquired by the accused with money derived from drug trafficking. • A Toyota brand vehicle, Fortuner style, circulation plate [Value 050], which was acquired by the accused with money derived from drug trafficking. 6.11. Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located in San José, Tibás, León XIII, alameda #1, northern sector, last two-story corner house on the left hand side., used by the accused [Name 046], the following result was obtained, and they correspond to objects acquired with money derived from drug trafficking: • A firearm, pistol type, Sig Sauer brand, model SP2009, series SP0035550, 9 mm caliber, a magazine, and 15 unfired 9 mm caliber rounds of ammunition.\n\nUsed to carry out criminal activity.
• A Huawei brand cell phone, black, in poor condition, cracked screen, with IMEI 868188044384844, with a Movistar brand SIM card with the number 8950604002902240575. Used to carry out criminal activity. • An Apple brand cell phone, iPhone style, gold, in poor condition, IMEI 354387065082656, with a Movistar brand SIM card with the number 8950604201003881846F, an Apple cell phone, iPhone style, gray, IMEI 355765074149955, Claro brand SIM card number 8950603019905649355F. Used to carry out criminal activity. • A Glock brand 9 mm firearm ammunition magazine and one hundred twenty-seven 9 mm caliber rounds. • A total amount of cash of four million six hundred twenty-three thousand colones, money that was generated from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the accused ([Name 046]) • A gun case containing a 9 mm ammunition magazine, three 12-gauge shotgun rounds, and various accessories, two gun cases and tactical articles including boots, jackets, and a helmet. • Two packages of vacuum-seal bags, a black scale, a white cutting board with residues of apparent marijuana, a Sarki brand vacuum-sealing machine, a glass container with plant residues of apparent marijuana, supplies used for drug dosing. • A magnetic GPS tracking device, TKISTAR brand, black. • Three invoices from [Name 292], numbers 18493, 19018, 19019 in the name of [Name 046] and a folio from Purdy Motor Agency, delivery of vehicle with license plate [Value 208]. • A yellow Skipper brand notebook with 39 folios of various notes. • Four rings of apparent gold, a bracelet of apparent gold, and a chain with a pendant of apparent gold, jewelry acquired with money from drug trafficking. • A Samsung brand black screen with no visible data and a black remote control with the legend PG. • A white video recorder, Hikvision brand, a mouse controller, power cable, and HDMI cable. • A black long-sleeved shirt, size M, with the legend \"PCD Police\" and the flag of Costa Rica. A black bulletproof vest, Blindajes Colombianos brand, number 170418, a black bulletproof vest, Second Chance brand. • A blue vehicle, year 2017, Toyota brand, metal plates, [Value 030], engine number 1KDV862619, chassis number MROHZ8CD5H0405001, in fair condition; inside the vehicle, four transparent bags containing apparent marijuana-type drug. Drugs that were in possession intended by the accused to be commercialized with third parties by the accused [Name 046]. 6.12 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located at [...], used by the accused [Name 010], the following result was obtained and corresponds to objects acquired with money from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, Leica style, black with two IMEIs, 869103042154338 and 8691103042162539, and a SIM card number 8950604402809759547, and a Samsung brand cell phone, gray with two IMEIs, 357474096804865 and 35747509804862, and with a SIM card number 8950604101002903973F. • A total amount of cash of ¢ 1,611,000.00 colones (one million six hundred eleven thousand colones), money that was generated from the drug trafficking and commercialization activity that was carried out by the accused [Name 010]. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black, IMEI 35694910/094681/1 and 356950/10/094681. • A Samsung brand cell phone, white, IMEI 357098101662214, and a Samsung brand tablet, black, with the photograph of [Name 010]. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gold, IMEI 359878/06/905261R, in poor condition. • A Huawei brand cell phone, blue, SIM card number 950642020149289. • A Swann brand recorder, black, with its respective cables. 6.13 Regarding the result of the search, registration, and seizure proceedings carried out at the property located at [...], used by the accused [Name 016] the following result was obtained and corresponds to objects acquired with money from drug trafficking: • A Huawei brand cell phone, blue with purple, with IMEIs 868139049562744 and IMEI 868139049586750, in fair condition, SIM card with non-visible phone number. • A Huawei brand cell phone, gray, with no visible IMEI and a cracked screen. • A Samsung brand cell phone, black, with IMEI 356017/07/356627/7, with its back cover cracked. • A Samsung brand cell phone, gray, with IMEI 351712/10/099841/3 and IMEI 351713/10099841/1. • A total amount of cash of ¢3,321,000.00 (three million three hundred twenty-one thousand colones), and $60 (sixty dollars), money that was generated from the criminal activity of drug sales carried out by the accused ([Name 016]). • A Samsung brand cell phone, pink, with a cracked screen, IMEI 3585518/08/872698/2 and the IMEI 358517/08/872698/0. • A Samsung A10 brand cell phone, red, with IMEI 358100/10/833702/9. • A Huawei brand cell phone, model JKMLX3, black, with two IMEI numbers, the first IMEI 866861049485004, the second IMEI 866861049520016, with a cracked screen, in fair condition, with its Sandisk 16gb black SD card and Movistar SIM card series 89506041010026535607. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, model JKM-LX3, with IMEI 865365042597741, with the 51)8613 black Adita brand card, with the SIM card series 8950604401712274511f, in fair condition. • A Huawei brand cell phone, black, with two IMEIs, the first 865163044717965 and the second 865163044757979, in fair condition, with a white and red Claro SIM card with series number 8950603018885859646F, without an SD card. • A non-lethal gun, Glock style, 9mm, series 2016N061733, black, 35 gold-colored rounds with the legend blazer 9mm luger brand, two unfired 12-gauge rounds, super x, western brand. • A digital video recorder with serial number D63292428, white, with its respective power adapter» [sic] (cfr. folios 276 to 321 of the indictment). The transcribed facts retain the wording that was stated in the indictment, except for the suppression of some references or points from the statement of facts —such as, for example, those identified as 4.30, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, and 5.12— because they were not proven or did not correspond to the trial, as they refer to absent or fugitive defendants. The inclusion in the proven facts of information not found contained in the statement of facts of the indictment has been discarded—which was recognized by the defense in its appeal, when affirming that the proven facts are identical to those charged—, although there is a correction in points 4.15 and 4.16, in which the year 2020 was changed to 2019, which constitutes a material error —this point will be elaborated further on—. Having clarified the above, it is necessary to verify whether the charging of [Name 001] was adequate and whether it enabled the effective exercise of her technical and material defense. This Chamber considers that the answer to that question is affirmative. The first thing that must be pointed out is that the analysis of the criminal charge cannot be done in the abstract, but must necessarily address the specific characteristics of the criminal phenomenon in question. Although there is a general rule that the statement of facts must be clear, precise, and detailed —Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—, this requirement cannot be understood inflexibly or statically, because not all crimes, nor all criminal phenomena, can be addressed in the same manner, since contexts vary. The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution No. 2021-01459, at 10:27 a.m., on December 9, 2021 —which this Chamber shares— stated the following regarding the subject under study: «In accordance with what has been described, the requirements of the accusatory pleading are set forth in article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates: \"Indictment and request to proceed to trial. When the Public Prosecutor's Office considers that the investigation provides grounds to bring the accused to public trial, it shall file the indictment requesting the commencement of trial. The indictment must contain: […] b) The precise and detailed statement of the punishable act attributed […] Therefore, the aforementioned subsection a) of that normative precept bears a significant link with the right to defense and the principle of imputation, since, taking as a starting point the factual circumstances attributed in the prosecutorial accusation, the accused will have the power to materialize their material and technical defense, however, the requirement regarding the determination of temporal, modal, and spatial situations will depend on the type of illicit act attributed to the defendant and the particularities of the case. That is, the balance with the right to defense is not disputed, being essential that the accused party can understand the conduct they are charged with in order to refute it» [sic] (emphasis supplied). In this case, we are faced with a complex criminal phenomenon, attributed to a criminal organization composed of a multiplicity of people at different hierarchical levels, which is charged with acts that extend over several months and constitute various criminal offenses. It is not possible, then, to apply the same parameters as to common crime, because, although acts constituting drug trafficking and money laundering are charged here, they cannot receive the same treatment, nor can the same formulation be expected as for another illicit act of the same nature, such as, for example, a drug transport caught in flagrante delicto, whose characteristics of time, place, and manner are established with great ease. Not in vain does domestic legislation, in accordance with international law, recognize as organized crime that phenomenon which presents: «1) Collective participation. A group composed of three or more persons, which has not been formed fortuitously for the immediate commission of a crime. 2) Organized group. That it is a group with an organized structure, because there is a specific role or task for each member of the group. 3) Permanence over time. That it exists for a certain time or for an indefinite period. 4) Concerted action to commit crimes. That it acts in concert with the purpose of committing one or more serious crimes» (Article 9 of Law No. 9481. In the same sense, Article 2(a) of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime). Precisely because of the complexity involved in addressing a phenomenon of this nature, the indictment cannot be expected to contain a description of each individual act or material thing that was carried out, since in these contexts, responsibility is based on the contribution made to the overall plan. To require that the charging of a criminal organization contain the same detail or structure as common crime implies ignoring the characteristics of that phenomenon, which requires a more comprehensive approach. An adequate charge against criminal organizations must include, then, the period during which the illicit activity took place, the place or places of operation, the internal structure of the group, including its operation and hierarchy, the illicit purpose, and, especially, the role each defendant played within that criminal network. The foregoing in no way implies that the typical structure of each crime should be overlooked within the charge, which is why the illicit purpose —which is nothing more than the subsumption of the facts into a criminal type— must be expressly stated; however, in this type of phenomenon, not every member of the criminal organization directly carries out the typical verb and that does not undermine the possibility of attributing criminal responsibility to them, in which case the determining factor will be the clear and express establishment of the contribution they made to the configuration of the illicit act. In this sense, the lack of attribution of a typical verb to each defendant individually does not delegitimize the charge if from the narration of facts, viewed comprehensively, the conduct charged and its impact on the overall act constituting the crime can be sufficiently understood. \n\nIn this regard, as the Third Chamber correctly noted in resolution No. 2012-911, at 09:11 a.m., of June 15, 2012: \"The statement of facts contained in the indictment is a logical unit and should not be divided, except when it contains different events that are mutually exclusive,\" which takes on even greater meaning when complex criminal phenomena are charged. As a corollary to the foregoing, the specification of facts that enables the right of defense cannot disregard the phenomenon being charged; consequently, what is relevant is that, based on the description provided, the facts fit a specific criminal offense and that the accused can understand the role attributed to them in the achievement of that unlawful act. The foregoing requirements are met in the indictment filed in this case. As has already been indicated in other sections of this ruling, the first fact of the charging document describes the existence of the criminal organization and its composition through the identification of its members. Furthermore, it clearly establishes the unlawful purpose, which corresponds to mid-scale drug trafficking; the places where said activity took place; and the period. Regarding the temporal delimitation, which was set between the months of April 2018 and October 2020, it is necessary to point out that, as already stated, one of the characteristics of a criminal organization is its duration over time, but, in addition, the primary offense charged, which corresponds to drug trafficking, is a permanent or continuing offense, which does not end until the activity ceases, whether by the decision of the active subject or by causes beyond their control that prevent them from continuing the activity (See rulings No. 2000-1018, at 10:36 a.m., of September 1, 2000, of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and No. 2025-89, at 4:25 p.m., of January 20, 2025, of the Sentence Appeals Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José). Hence, the setting of a broad temporal parameter does not constitute imprecision, but rather arises from the very nature of the criminal phenomenon charged. The second fact of the charging document describes the operational model of the criminal organization, detailing the manner in which drug trafficking and the handling of the profits derived from it were carried out. Next, the third fact, which is among the most relevant, establishes the role of each of the members of the criminal organization. In the case of [Name 001], it is indicated that they held the leadership role, and were therefore responsible for the direction, supervision, and coordination of the group and the unlawful activities it carried out, which are described. From these initial facts, circumstances of time, place, and manner are thus obtained, as well as the distribution of functions for the development of the criminal activity of drug trafficking. The following points of the prosecutorial indictment, contained in section 4, refer to specific acts carried out by each of the accused related to drug trafficking — except for points 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, which allude to money laundering (legitimación de capitales) —; section 5 describes the offense of money laundering and the specific acts attributed to each defendant. In none of these is [Name 001] described as performing any of the typical verbs; however, it is clarified that the defendants to whom they are attributed acted under their instruction or delegation, which constitutes a clear connection of the subject to the criminal activity. From the foregoing, it can be deduced, then, that the prosecutorial indictment does clearly, precisely, and in a detailed manner describe the phenomenon attributed to the criminal organization and the role that [Name 001] played in achieving the unlawful ends. By virtue of the foregoing, the accused had the opportunity to know the facts being attributed to them and to structure their technical and material defense; consequently, no violation of their rights is verified. It is true that the trial court did not dwell on a specific analysis of the indictment, but rather limited itself to pointing out: \"In another of his arguments, the defense attorney criticizes the indictment, considering it imprecise and devoid of a proper charge; the court dismisses the argument, as the conducts described in the indictment do charge conducts that qualify as the crime of drug trafficking, committed in co-authorship\" (cf. page 789 of the judgment). The foregoing, although a brief response, does express the court's stance, in that it did not agree with the defense that the indictment contained a flawed charge. Furthermore, the issuance of a conviction based on the facts charged is the greatest evidence that the trial court did not deem the defense's claim to be valid. The appellant states that the indictment placed the temporal framework of the facts between April 2018 and March 2019, which in their opinion implies a limit that does not allow any event outside that parameter to be considered proven. However, in the first fact, the delimitation of the period in which the organization operated is made and, expressly, it is indicated that it spanned from April 2018 to October 2020, so it is evident that in point 4, when 2019 was indicated as the year of completion, this corresponds to a clerical error (error material). In any case, in the facts subsequently described within that section 4 — 4.1 to 4.45 — the specific date of each event is established, so this clerical error has no significance whatsoever. The defense is not correct in stating that facts outside that temporal parameter could not be considered proven, as a full reading of the facts charged allows one, precisely, to understand that it is a clerical error. Furthermore, as already stated, the events that are itemized contain specific dates, which is what must be considered. Moreover, the evidence gathered in this case, which was accessible to the parties from the investigation stage, allowed the technical and material defense to learn of the events attributed to the defendants, as well as the dates on which they were located. In addition to the foregoing, the appellant insists that it was necessary that, in each of the facts where their client is mentioned, a specific date be set on which [Name 001] gave the order, instruction, or delegation to the other defendants, thereby seeking a piecemeal analysis of the facts. However, as already stated, the indictment must be viewed in its entirety, because it describes facts against a criminal organization that continued operating over several months and in which each of its members had a defined task. In the case of [Name 001], the role attributed was that of leadership and coordination of the criminal activity, within the temporal parameter already indicated, that is, from April 2018 to October 2020, so it was not necessary to delimit the time and date of each specific order, because in the framework of the criminal organization, what is relevant is that it was stated that the criminal activities conforming to the typical verbs — of which there are more specific dates — were carried out by their mandate. Regarding the defense's complaint concerning the lack of knowledge of the quantity of drugs handled in each case, this is a circumstance that does not have the significance that the defense seems to assign to it. It can be seen that the indictment stated that drug trafficking was carried out on a mid-scale and that its destination was to supply other organizations and final consumers. Whether quantities of drugs were handled that did or did not allow for the understanding that their purpose was personal consumption is an aspect that corresponds to the evidentiary analysis, not to the indictment, because the indictment describes a specific purpose, which is to deliver them to third parties. The defense contends that there was a violation of the principle of correlation between the indictment and the sentence (principio de correlación entre acusación y sentencia), but attributes it to the setting of a broad temporal parameter, which reveals a confusion between this principle and that of the indictment (principio de imputación). The comparison of the statement of facts contained in the charging document and the proven factual matrix leads to the affirmation that they are essentially the same, except for the suppression of some peripheral circumstances and facts, on the occasion of the information generated during the trial. No circumstance was included that affected the core of the charge, and even the defense itself acknowledges in its appeal that the facts bear identity. The only variation made was concerning the year in which facts 4.15 and 4.16 were set, changing from the year 2020 to 2019, which, as already noted, corresponds to the correction of a clerical error, which is authorized by section 348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). This aspect was addressed when hearing the appeal filed on behalf of [Name 015], [Name 022], and [Name 013] — to which reference is made for its reading —; however, it is reiterated that the fact falls within the temporal parameter set at the beginning of the indictment, that is, between April 2018 and October 2020; furthermore, the evidence on which it is based was known to the parties from the investigation stage, so it was not an unknown circumstance, nor was it surprising to the appellants. The defense states that it was not possible to substitute or expand the indictment with a different or more extensive narrative to the detriment of the accused. Reference has been made to this circumstance in other sections of this ruling. In this case, the investigation covered a period of more than two years, such that at trial a large number of events were reconstructed, even some that are not constitutive of a crime, as it was necessary to know the existing dynamics among the accused persons. The foregoing in no way means that the defendants were convicted for uncharged facts. The indictment concerned a criminal phenomenon that fit the crimes of drug trafficking and money laundering, which was not exceeded in the sentence, given that both were considered proven in the terms described in the statement of facts charged. On the other hand, the acquittal ordered in favor of the defendant [Name 007] for the unlawful act of money laundering warrants a differentiated analysis, as said defendant was not assigned a particular role in the statement of facts charged for the achievement of said crime, but was mentioned only in point 5, which corresponds to a general statement of the offense. Therefore, the trial court determined that the specific conduct they would have performed was not detailed and, for that reason, acquitted them. The situation of [Name 001] is not comparable to that of any of the remaining defendants, because they were assigned the role of leadership and direction of the criminal acts carried out by the criminal organization. Thus, the particular analysis performed in favor of [Name 007] cannot be described as an error of coherence or an internal contradiction of the judgment, because it addresses a very particular situation that affected the latter and from no point of view is it comparable to the charge made against [Name 001]. Based on the circumstances set forth, as none of the errors invoked by the technical defense are verified, the ground is declared without merit (sin lugar).\n\n1. **Third ground for appeal filed by the private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Name 001].** Accuses \"Disagreement with the assessment of evidence, lack of analytical reasoning (fundamentación analítica), violation of the rules of sound critical judgment (sana crítica racional) and breach of the principle of logical derivation (principio de derivación lógica).\" Alleges that the trial court only granted credibility to the prosecution's evidence, detracting value from the defense's evidence without performing an objective analysis of the latter. Points out that only the evidentiary elements favoring a conviction were considered, deliberately omitting specific aspects that benefited the accused. Adds that the judicial resolution contains internal contradictions, affirming facts that are later disproven in the same ruling. States that the referral of the indictment to the judge of the intermediate stage was objected to, without the accused being duly notified regarding the related cases 18000017-1219-PE (Case \"Bueno,\" charged in 4.6), 19-014179-0042-PE (Case \"Cementerio,\" charged in 4.34), and 19-000160-0622-PE (Case \"[Name 269],\" charged in 4.38). Transcribes what was resolved in the judgment on this point and subsequently maintains that said conclusion is erroneous. Argues that the accused must have the opportunity to address the attributed facts before the indictment is referred to the judge of the intermediate stage. Highlights that the accused and their defense requested an investigative statement (indagatoria) for those summary proceedings, without being attended to by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público). Reproduces a passage from the investigative statement conducted by the Public Prosecutor's Office, where it is recorded which facts they were formally notified of (intimado), specifically summaries 18-000017-1219-PE and 19014179-0042-PE, which were not added to the file when their client was questioned, so they did not know what those events were and had no opportunity to defend themselves. States that even the first pretrial detention order was based on those events, without the defense knowing what they involved. Indicates that the defendant submitted a filing (cf. page 3320) requesting that the content of those summaries be formally notified to them (imposición) and that the Public Prosecutor's Office's response, months later, was that the cases were added to the record, but they were not called to a new investigative statement. Argues \"that it is absurd, as the court understands it, that the mere fact that [Name 001], by the time of trial, had knowledge of the cases, meant that the defect had disappeared; it is evident that this is not the way, because what Article 309 intends is to give the accused person the possibility to make a statement, not that they know the file.\" Warns that, according to the trial court, the accused was not named in those summaries, which is why they did not need to be summoned for a new formal notification (intimación), but then includes them among the proven facts. Transcribes passages from pages 409, 682, 688, and 690 of the judgment in support of their position. Emphasizes that, if their client was not an accused in those summaries, it was not possible to convict them for those facts.\n\nHe states that in the \"Varela\" case the defendant is not mentioned, only in the reports of the present matter \"in order to achieve a materialization (materialización), with respect to the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas)\". He accuses that an attempt was made to intercept the subject known as [Nombre 269] and link him to [Nombre 001], but the criminal judge rejected the request, which is why he asserts there is no link between the subjects. He points out that, according to the accusation, his client designated [Nombre 309] to carry drugs to the organization, in contrast to what was stated at trial by witnesses [Nombre 093] and [Nombre 310], who denied that situation. Likewise, he reviews part of the statement of [Nombre 142], [Nombre 325] and [Nombre 092]. He asserts that the Public Prosecutor's Office simply omitted to expand the investigative statement (declaración indagatoria) of the accused, despite it serving as the basis for the conviction. He adds that it was not possible to transfer the file to a preliminary hearing without that act being completed. He argues that an absolute defect was incurred that is not capable of being validated. He describes that all the witnesses assured at trial that their knowledge of the summary proceedings derived from the telephone interceptions. In addition, the trial court also considered the facts proven based on the information derived from them. He reports that at trial, 264 calls in total were heard in which the accused intervenes, and in none of these does he give orders to the other co-defendants to deal drugs, weapons, money, or to purchase goods with money from drug trafficking. He qualifies the telephone interception as an amphibological indicator, which can only be assessed if there is materialization (materialización), a step that is lacking. He points out that no controlled purchases were made, nor raids in which drugs were seized, because the materializations (materializaciones) are from other cases in which no person from the present summary proceedings was investigated. He highlights that in relation to the \"Bueno\" and \"Cementerio\" cases, it was not possible to establish that what was transported and marketed by [Nombre 029] was drugs. He affirms that the testimony of [Nombre 092], who was the most important witness of the investigation, was not transcribed completely and that the trial court recorded false information in the judgment about that statement, because it omitted to include 23 questions and answers from the defense, in which he pointed out that he could not accredit circumstances referring to the central core of the accusation and that benefited the accused. He mentions that with questions 1 to 4, which he transcribes, fact 2 of the accusation is discredited; with questions 5 and 6, fact 4.1; number 7 discredits fact 4.17. He criticizes that facts were considered accredited where [Nombre 046] appears as an accused person, even though he died and the extinction of the criminal action should have been declared. He accuses that it went even further, because the forfeiture of assets related to the deceased was ordered. He reviews questions 8 to 12, then indicates that the prosecution could not prove that his client designated [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026] for any illicit action and, despite this, fact 4.1 was considered accredited. From questions 13 to 15 he infers that it discredits any directive from his client for the commercialization of drugs by [Nombre 029] or [Nombre 026]. From question 16 he derives that it completely discredits proven fact 4.13. Based on questions 17 and 18 he questions that the facts in which [Nombre 050] participates were considered proven, even though he was not tried. He adds that, based on the answer provided by the judicial investigator, it was impossible to accredit the numbered facts 4.13 and 4.23. From question 19 he asserts that fact 4.26 is dismissed. He reviews questions 20 to 23, then points out that the officer in charge of the investigation made it clear that in this case no drug seizure was made in more than two years of investigation and that the Public Prosecutor's Office tried to make some link with the parallel cases. He accuses that all these circumstances imply a violation of the principle of correlation (principio de correlación) between accusation and judgment, because there are no specific dates for the facts. He asserts that the accusation does not indicate the concrete evidence that led the court to be convinced of the facts, nor does it describe the communicability of the circumstances or the expanded intent that allowed the imposition of the high prison sentences on his client. He maintains that what was accredited at trial is contrary to the imputed facts and that the court limited itself to copying the factual scenario of the accusation. He castigates that the court assumed the functions of the accusing body to the detriment of his client, because it was not possible to accredit the circumstances of time, place, and manner of the facts in which the accused [Nombre 001] is linked. He indicates that the statements of the witnesses do not allow accrediting the existence of the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). He questions that the responses of witness [Nombre 092] were not considered, despite benefiting his client. He states that, had these responses been assessed, criminal liability could not have been attributed to his client. He castigates that the judgment contains an insufficient and biased analysis of the evidence; that it illegitimately discredited the statement given by the accused and that it was consistent with the documentary evidence. He highlights that, according to the accusation, the defendant's home is located on four lots, despite the fact that evidence was presented showing it covers a single lot. Furthermore, there was evidence of loans of money in large amounts that were not assessed. He reiterates that the testimonial evidence does not allow the accused facts to be considered proven and, despite this, the trial court considered that the evidence was \"overwhelming\". He assures that there was scant reasoning in the judgment, violating the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica), because the evidence was confusing and insufficient and the duty to provide reasons (deber de fundamentación) was violated. As a grievance, he alleges that the erroneous analysis of the evidence resulted in an illegitimate conviction against his client of 20 years in prison. He requests that his client be acquitted or, failing that, that a retrial be ordered; also, that the precautionary measure of preventive detention (prisión preventiva) be set aside. The ground is declared without merit. Contrary to what was affirmed by the technical defense of the defendant [Nombre 001], this Chamber considers that his criminal liability, with respect to the crimes of international drug trafficking (tráfico internacional de drogas) and money laundering (legitimación de capitales), was duly accredited. It is no coincidence that his legal situation is addressed after knowing that of the remaining defendants, because the role attributed to him in the accusation is clearly distinguishable, since he was identified as the leader of the criminal organization and, therefore, as the person in charge of coordinating all the activity carried out by the other co-defendants. Under the logic followed in the accusation and considered proven in the judgment, the criminal actions attributed to [Nombre 029], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 030], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 019] and [Nombre 010] —with the exception of the simple homicide imputed to the latter—, constituting the offenses of aggravated drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas agravado) and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) —reference will be made to this upon considering the appeal filed by the private defender Luis Cubillo Pacheco—, are also attributable to [Nombre 001] as a co-perpetrator (coautor). As already indicated in other sections of this pronouncement, co-perpetration (coautoría) is a form of plural criminal participation, in which a collective act is carried out that is integrated with the individual contributions of the participants. For this reason, it is not necessary for each co-perpetrator to directly execute any of the typical verbs for the offense to be imputable to him; rather, what is relevant is that it was carried out under a common resolution and with essential individual contributions, the sum of which translates into a collective act subsumable under a criminal type. As detailed in the preceding whereas clause (considerando), in the prosecution's accusation it was indicated that, in the distribution of functions and tasks of those investigated, [Nombre 001]: \"was the leader of the criminal organization, in charge of the direction, supervision and coordination of the criminal group, by his own hand or through intermediary members; he maintained control of all the illicit actions carried out by the criminal structure such as: the storage of drug caches belonging to the organization; the transport and distribution of the caches to third groups located in various parts of the country; the commercialization of the drug in areas under the control of the narco gang; the collection and distribution of the money generated by the illicit activity, as well as procuring through multiple actions executed by group members and front men to insert the proceeds derived from the illicit activities into the economy and the national financial system, among others demanded by the drug trafficking business\" (cf. f. 277 of the judgment). We see then that the contribution said defendant made to the collective act, constituting aggravated drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas agravado), was not the direct execution of any of the typical verbs, such as storing, transporting or supplying drugs to third parties —other indictees participated in these actions, as described in the proven facts—, but rather coordinating and directing the entire criminal network, so that those actions could be carried out by the remaining defendants.\n\nIn a significant number of sections, the judgment refers to that circumstance: \"Likewise, the police interest was to link the leader of the organization [Name 001] with the acts that were materially executed by other persons, which would mean that the leader was not present at the time of the execution of the criminal activity -as effectively happened-, as usually occurs in ordinary companies, where it would not be expected that its administrators or managers are the ones who materially distribute the products they trade and, at the same time, are the ones who sell them to final consumers […] In that sense, it must be considered that a criminal organization dedicated to the sale of illicit services and goods has a structure just like an ordinary company, of a hierarchical and pyramidal type, where there is a leader who establishes the mission and vision of his company as well as sub-leaders who are in charge of the organization and planning of the material execution of that initial vision. So that, in conclusion, it is held that a criminal organization has the same bureaucratic and administrative structure as an ordinary one […]. (cf. pp. 325 to 326 of the judgment). In a similar vein, it is stated further on: \"it was evident that the operating model adopted by the criminal structure encompassed several aspects such as the storage and dosage of the drug caches acquired by the group, work carried out under the supervision and direction of the leader of the criminal structure and the members designated by him to organize and execute such actions, including the supply of caches to the various points of sale, the sale of drug caches owned by the criminal group to other narco gangs based in the national territory, the sale of drug caches owned by the narco-structure to third-party drug dependents, through the properties that the organization held for such purposes like “Bunkers”, as well as on public roads in the areas under the control of the organization, the insertion into the financial system and the national economy of the profits obtained from the illicit activity, seeking for this purpose the use of various means to that end, it is possible to consider the following entitled factual accusation as proven\" (cf. pp. 374 to 375 of the judgment). Another example, the following allusion: \"Being clear that [Name 001], as leader of the criminal organization was called by his collaborators by the aliases: “[Name 136], [Name 084], that dude”, among others; he had control and leadership over the drug deliveries carried out by the criminal organization through its lower-ranking collaborators\" (cf. pp. 399 to 400 of the judgment). Under that lens of the distribution of tasks and functions typical of a criminal enterprise, the a quo carried out its approach to the facts and the evidence, without any error being verified in that proceeding. It is noted that, when beginning the intellectual reasoning, the trial court clearly stated: \"this jurisdictional authority proceeds from the following premises: (i) a criminal organization has an administrative structure equal or similar to one that executes lawful activities; (ii) circumstantial evidence is the ideal means for weighing the evidentiary material presented during this adversarial proceeding; (iii) it is unnecessary for the leaders of a criminal clan to be the material executors of the criminal acts, if it is inferred from the evidence that they knew of and authorized them; and (iv) the absence of direct evidence, by itself, does not delegitimize the state's punitive claim. Under these premises, the evidentiary material submitted to the adversarial proceeding will be assessed\", an approach that is correct given the particularities of this case, in which an organized crime group was investigated and prosecuted, which meets the characteristics established in numeral 9 of Law No. 9481, namely; \"1) Collective participation. A group composed of three or more persons, which has not been formed fortuitously for the immediate commission of a crime. 2) Organized group. That it is a group with an organized structure, because there is a specific role or task for each member of the group. 3) Permanence over time. That it exists for a certain time or for an indefinite period of time. 4) Concerted action to commit crimes. That it acts in concert with the purpose of committing one or more serious crimes.\" Dealing with organized criminality, it is not surprising that the person who acts as leader does not materially execute the typical conducts, since they operate through a hierarchical and functional structure, in which each of their subordinates performs actions specific to the task assigned to them, aimed at achieving the illicit act. For that reason, the absence of direct material acts does not exclude their responsibility, which derives from the control of the organization and with it, of the criminal activities it carries out. Nor is the absence of direct evidence against them surprising, because in organized structures it is logical that precautions are extreme to not generate a trace of the activity, for which reason their participation must be deduced from circumstantial evidence and the circumstances it reveals, such as, for example, the behavior patterns followed by the persons they relate to, the fact that their activities revolve around them, and the execution of tasks for their benefit. In a scenario like this, service acts that at first glance might seem irrelevant for being part of daily activities, seen together with other behaviors, for example, ensuring secrecy in all the actions of that central figure, avoiding contact with police authorities, constant accompaniment as an escort, among others, constitute clear indicia of a subject's hierarchy over others. If the equation includes that those subordinates simultaneously participate materially in criminal activities, it is possible to conclude that said actions are also performed as subordinates of that person. In that same vein, all those acts that might seem innocuous or inconclusive are nothing more than the display of a division of tasks characteristic of an organized structure. In the case at hand, the leadership position of [Name 001] was duly established based on circumstantial evidence. Throughout the judgment, it is documented that the dynamics of the other accused individuals revolved around [Name 001], both in ordinary tasks, such as taking their pets to the veterinarian, bringing food to their sentimental partner, taking their children to school, as well as in their constant accompaniment, serving as driver, escort, and facilitating their fluid circulation on public roads, evading police presence, which precisely reflects the centrality of that subject's figure with respect to the others. The a quo details situations of this nature from the beginning of the investigation, as extracted from police report IP-297-EN-18, of October 19, 2018, from which it follows that, after receiving the criminal complaint, when they were just beginning to locate and become acquainted with the persons mentioned in it —[Name 029] and [Name 161]—, a particular movement of the subjects of interest around [Name 001] was already denoted, consistent with the criminal complaint which detailed that this subject, known as “[Name 084]” or “[Name 136]”, was the leader of a criminal organization dedicated mainly to drug trafficking. The judgment states that, upon initiating the inquiries, the judicial police had information about conjugal visits that [Name 001] made to their sentimental partner at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center. The various surveillances carried out at the site on the days April 3, 2018, June 15, 2018, June 29, 2018, November 2, 2018, May 29, 2019, June 12, 2019, among others (cf. pp. 59, 338 to 339, 345 to 346, 729 to 728, 736 to 737 of the judgment), made it possible to establish that the accused persons organized themselves to transport them and provide security.\n\n[Nombre 030], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 022], ([Nombre 013]), and [Nombre 161] participated in dynamics of that nature. Based on the evidence produced at trial, the lower court (a quo) was able to reconstruct the operation of the security protocols employed by the defendants, which included the use of several vehicles and even transfers of [Nombre 001] on the routes she traveled:\n\n\"It was documented that on June 15, during surveillance carried out at the El Buen Pastor Penitentiary Center, at 08:10 the vehicle Toyota Prado, license plate [Valor 171], was observed arriving, from which [Nombre 001] descended; then, at 11:31, she left the penitentiary center but boarded the vehicle with license plate [Valor 108]; she continued to the Vizcaya sector in Desamparados to board, at that location, the Toyota Prado again, which had taken her to the penitentiary center; immediately, the vehicle transferred to the León XIII sector, from which it quickly withdrew. (see folios 55-59 of Report IP297-EN-2018). Regarding the vehicle [Valor 108], through inquiries it was linked to [Nombre 029] as the person who paid the last circulation fee and also to [Nombre 312] as the last person who took it for a vehicle technical inspection. Another surveillance was carried out by investigators on June 29, 2018, always in the surroundings of the El Buen Pastor Penitentiary Center; upon starting, two points of interest were set: at 07:46 hours, at the dwelling located in Desamparados, Vizcaya, precisely from the 'Super El Buen Precio,' 75 meters west, the vehicle Toyota Corolla, gray, year 2010, license plate [Valor 108], mentioned in previous surveillances, was parked, and at 07:54 hours, in the surroundings of the El Buen Pastor Penitentiary Center, was the Mitsubishi Montero, wine-colored, year 2001, license plate [Valor 172], driven by [Nombre 029]; then, at 08:12 hours, the Toyota Echo, golden, year 2001, license plate [Valor 071], with tinted windows, luxury rims, arrived at the penitentiary center; [Nombre 001] descended from the vehicle and entered, only to leave at 11:47 hours to board the vehicle Toyota Corolla, license plate [Valor 173], taking a southern route, and the Mitsubishi Montero was traveling in the same direction, guarding said vehicle. Now, with the purpose of obtaining the identity of the driver of the vehicle with license plate [Valor 071] who was identified in the surveillance, the judicial investigators coordinated with the Traffic Police, who identified him as [Nombre 030]\" (cfr. folios 338 to 339 of the judgment).\n\nOne of these visits occurred on November 2, 2018. On that occasion, [Nombre 010] and [Nombre 161] accompanied [Nombre 001], as reported by the judicial investigators and supported by police reports and the telephone interception. The judgment states:\n\n\"In addition to the interception of communications being active, the judicial investigators continued with field work; surveillances were resumed at the El Buen Pastor Penitentiary Center on the occasion of conjugal visits that [Nombre 001] regularly made to her sentimental partner and person deprived of liberty, [Nombre 081].\n\nThe report sets out the results of the surveillance carried out on November 2, 2018, at the El Buen Pastor correctional facility, where movements were again triggered related to the protection of [Name 001], who was indeed observed entering the conjugal visit. Police identified a Toyota Corolla, light gray, with license plate [Value 108]; another Toyota Echo, gold, license plate [Value 045], with tinted windows and luxury rims; and on the sidewalk located on the east side of El Buen Pastor, [Name 161], ID [Value 109], and in the vicinity, [Name 010], ID [Value 004]. Both the vehicles and the individuals observed were already known beforehand by the judicial investigators as part of the criminal group led by Mr. [Name 001]” [sic] (cf. pages 345 to 346 of the judgment). The lower court (a quo) states that by that date, telephone line [Value 063], assigned to [Name 161], alias “[Name 083]”, was already under intervention; he called [Name 010], with whom he held the following dialogue demonstrating how they prepared for the visit and the strict schedule they kept. The communication corresponds to sequence 0310019, at 10:47:56 hours on November 2, 2018: “Subject called subject of interest and said – Where are you? Subject of interest answered – well, around there. Subject asked – And did you pick up the food and everything? Subject of interest answered – I’m going to pick up [Name 124]. Why? Subject answered – I thought you had to be there already with us, you have to be there with us. Subject of interest asked – But isn’t that thing at eleven twenty, eleven forty? Subject answered – eleven twenty. Subject of interest said – well, damn, it’s not even eleven yet, I was at the bank exchanging some money. Subject said – oh, okay, okay” (Emphasis supplied. Cf. page 346 of the judgment). One of the objectives of those accompaniments was evidenced on that same date as a result of the information arising from the telephone interventions, as it was shown that the defendants were aware of the movement of other vehicles present at the site, as is derived from the following communication between [Name 161] and [Name 010], cited by the lower court (a quo): “From [Value 063]. Call identified with sequence number 0310047. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of service [Value 106]. This call was made at 12:10:25 hours on November 2, 2018. Subject of interest called another subject and said – that car is still there, you should see how they stared me down, stared me down. Subject answered – oh yeah? A third subject is heard saying – two guys, huh? Second subject asked subject of interest – is it two guys? Subject of interest answered – yes, two guys are still there, they haven't moved but they stared me down hard and didn't take their eyes off me until they couldn't see the car anymore. I'm going to check, I'm going to see if anyone is following me. A third subject is heard saying – (says something unintelligible) bringing food, call the cops on them to see who they are, call 911. Second subject said to subject of interest – man, have someone call 911 from a prepaid phone and tell them, you know, the cops. A third subject was heard saying – let's see what they do. Second subject said to subject of interest – let's see what they do, what they tell them. Subject of interest said: anyway, I'm going to circle around to see if they moved after I passed. Second subject said – but pay attention to me, call them and you tell them that you live across the street and that there is a gray car with such and such plates and that it's very suspicious, make up a name and say they have two briefcases there” (Emphasis supplied. Cf. page 347 of the judgment). From the conversation, it can be inferred that the defendants detected a vehicle they deemed suspicious and therefore considered calling the emergency number 911 to generate an alert about it, which constitutes a task typical of what is known in police jargon as counter-surveillance, corresponding to the search for and detection of any risk situation, such as a police presence. A significant number of sections of the judgment reflect that the defendants organized to transport [Name 001], through an entirely established logistics operation, which involved some of them traveling on the road along the route the subject was to take, to warn about traffic conditions, but above all about police presence. [Name 029], [Name 007], the brothers [Name 004] and [Name 022] were all identified in tasks of this nature, whose participation in material activities characteristic of drug trafficking was duly accredited. This was extensively alluded to when hearing the appeals filed on behalf of those defendants, to which reference is made. To illustrate these movements on public roads, some of the communications that the lower court (a quo) recorded in the judgment are cited: “From [Value 098]. Call identified with sequence number 0305849. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 088]. This call was made at 12:13 hours on December 14, 2018.\n\n[Nombre 010] called [Nombre 109], who told him – hey, [Nombre 010] said what?, [Nombre 109] said – well I don't know what they would answer me, says [Nombre 083], [Nombre 010] said – Where are they?, [Nombre 109] said – here we're going along [Nombre 313], [Nombre 010] said – well yeah, so nothing's visible?, [Nombre 109] said – no, all clear, [Nombre 010] said – okay, here we go, (mentions something unintelligible), [Nombre 001] said on the other phone – yeah, I'm already on my way, I'm going to check the car, [Nombre 109] said – which way are you coming?, [Nombre 010] said – along the line, (mentions something but it's unintelligible), [Nombre 109] said – man, [Nombre 010] said – mmm, What?, [Nombre 109] said – which way are you guys coming?, [Nombre 010] said – hello, [Nombre 109] said – all, all, all clear here at the power; [Nombre 010] said – okay here we go along, [Nombre 001] said on the other phone (can't understand) I'm always in the car, [Nombre 010] said – we're about to come out onto the Palí main road, [Nombre 109] said – (mentions something unintelligible) the Palí main road, all clear at the Pubi, all clear at the Pubi, Gara, there's Villa man, [Nombre 010] said – oof, let's go, [Nombre 109] said – all clear Gara, [Nombre 010] said – okay here we go, Palí, [Nombre 109] said – which way are you coming?, Palí, [Nombre 010] said – aha, [Nombre 109] said – Palí, all clear at the Leña, [Nombre 010] said – uh-huh, [Nombre 109] said – she's hot man, nice to touch her ass man, [Nombre 010] said – everything okay?, [Nombre 109] said – all clear, here we go like by the leña, [Nombre 010] said – uh-huh uh-huh, tell us, [Nombre 109] said – which way are you coming?, which way are you coming, [Nombre 010] said – here we are in Panal, [Nombre 109] said – is there a traffic jam?, [Nombre 010] said – yes, [Nombre 109] said – there's a traffic jam?, [Nombre 010] said – there's a huge fucking one here, [Nombre 001] spoke on the other phone however you can't understand what they're saying, [Nombre 010] said – pass me to Tobes, [Nombre 083] said – hello, [Nombre 010] said – man, hasn't anything happened?, [Nombre 083] said – no, [Nombre 010] said – because well, there goes one flying with its parking lights on, with the sirens, flying downwards, [Nombre 083] said – no, nothing's happened here, [Nombre 010] said – well, there they go, so you guys are on alert, [Nombre 083] said – Where are you guys?, [Nombre 010] said – we're already here stuck at the traffic light, there they go, [Nombre 083] said – a patrol car, [Nombre 010] said – yeah, one, [Nombre 083] said – there they come, there they come, there they come, [Nombre 010] said to [Nombre 001] – yeah, right, that's what I've always said, that stuff is a setback, [Nombre 001] said on the other phone – some lot, [Nombre 010] said – there goes another one, [Nombre 083] said – another one?, [Nombre 010] said yes, [Nombre 083] said – they turned in towards the school, [Nombre 010] said – they took off to the school, [Nombre 083] said – which way are you guys coming?, [Nombre 010] said – well, here we go where I told you man, [Nombre 001] said on the other phone – idiot, there's an entrance to the Red Cross there, [Nombre 083] said – here comes another one, [Nombre 001] said on the other phone – there's a traffic jam, [Nombre 010] said – yeah, yeah, there it goes, [Nombre 083] said – I'm going to go in by the school to see what that thing is, [Nombre 010] said – do it, come over because, you dummy, we need you man, here we go, here we go man, just as long as Gara is all good, that's all, where is he?, [Nombre 083] said – which way are you coming?, [Nombre 010] said – here along the Lico, [Nombre 109] said – they're coming along the Lico, who knows what happened at the school because he took off flying, [Nombre 010] said uh-huh uh-huh here we go, sometimes it's a show what they do, [Nombre 109] said – you should have seen how he turned here at the school entrance, he almost flipped rasta, [Nombre 010] said – here we go, here we go, Where are they?, [Nombre 109] said – we're here around [Nombre 061], which way are you coming?, [Nombre 010]\n\n... said - here by the Gena, [Name 109] said - ah, [Name 010] said - by the gene, [Name 109] said - by [Name 166], (subject off-phone said something unintelligible) [Name 109] said - we're turning at Gara, [Name 010] said - here we go now, we're going straight, [Name 109] said - they went straight, [Name 010] said - [Name 010] said - yes, [Name 109] said - they're coming from below, [Name 010] said - huh?, [Name 109] said - they're coming from the lower side, we're here at Gara, [Name 010] said - look there, and we're going straight, [Name 109] said - I'm still here, we're still here, [Name 010] said - no no, stay there, everything's fine there, [Name 109] said - should we keep going straight?, [Name 010] said - yes, we're here, we're doing fine, all clear, [Name 109] said - let's keep going straight, [Name 109] said - we're going down, [Name 010] said - yes.\n\n«Ends conversation» [sic] (cf. fs. 623 to 624 of the judgment). The preceding communication is a faithful reflection of those dynamics developed by the accused, since while [Nombre 001] —who was not one of the interlocutors, but was recorded outside the telephone— was traveling in the vehicle in which [Nombre 010] was also traveling, another of the defendants, in this case [Nombre 007], was informing them about the state of the route. It is further confirmed that the objective of the subjects was to know the location of police authority personnel and thus be able to evade them. Moreover, the evidence also reveals that part of the purposes pursued with this way of acting was to avoid the identification of the vehicles in which they were moving. This is evident from the following communication: «From [Valor 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0040994. The intervened telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Valor 094]. This call was made at 13:31 hours on May 11, 2019. [Nombre 124] spoke with [Nombre 083], [Nombre 124] said – here I come, arriving at the line, [Nombre 083] said – well then, do I park at the Gara entrance?, [Nombre 124] said – do I park at Gara's?, [Nombre 124] said – yes, [Nombre 083] said – and are they going to enter where you guys are there at the Las Tenis entrance?, [Nombre 124] said – which way am I going to enter?, [Nombre 083] said – ha?, [Nombre 124] said – which way am I going to enter?, [Nombre 083] said – that's what I mean, which way are you going to enter?, [Nombre 124] said – well yes, why?, [Nombre 083] said – no, that's why I'm asking you because, well, like, because of that guy who doesn't want the cops to see the car and, well, as it's parked there, [Nombre 124] said – is there one there where Chili is?, [Nombre 083] said – man, right across from the one, man, where [Nombre 065]'s entrance is, man, right across from the one, the cop is right there looking out, [Nombre 124] said – aha where, there by where Chili is, just a little bit outside, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – on the alameda or before?, [Nombre 083] said – on the alameda man, on the alameda, looking towards where?, [Nombre 083] said – towards las tenis, the cop is there, like tucked into the alameda man, she's with some guys from, [Nombre 124] said – with some guys from what?, from cable?, [Nombre 083] said – from cable, yes, and around the turn down below is the other one and inside the place there are some cops, where Los Rigos are, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – man, but if they are with the cable guys, they are with the cable guys, [Nombre 124] said – yes, if they are with the cable guys, they are with the cable guys, [Nombre 083] said – no, that's why, I'm telling you so you know the cop is there, I mean she's parked there, [Nombre 124] said – well yes, I know you're telling me the cop is there but if they're with the cable guys, they're on another system, anything happens you stick your tongue out at them, you flip them off already, [Nombre 083] said – yes, you cocksucker, [Nombre 124] said – you flip them off, [Nombre 083] said – and if you come entering on that guy, afterwards don't say anything, you dick-sucker, I'm going to the Gara entrance then, [Nombre 124] said – I'm here, Panal, I'm going now, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – which way is the son of a bitch looking, towards the street or towards the alameda?, [Nombre 124] said – towards the street, [Nombre 083] said – towards the street man. Towards the front of the one man, I don't know why you don't explain well man, [Nombre 124] said – I mean, [Nombre 083] said – towards the front of the one, [Nombre 124] said – looking sort of towards the front of the one, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – are they down below or what?, [Nombre 124] said – are they crouched down or what?, [Nombre 083] said – no, the guys are sitting in the car, [Nombre 124] said – sitting in the car, [Nombre 083] said – in a milk box one, it is, [Nombre 124] said – no, but if they are with the cable thing, it's with the cable thing, dumbass, [Nombre 083] said – there are two cars there, [Nombre 124] said – well, well, I'm on my way man, [Nombre 166], [Nombre 083] said – well man, those son-of-a-bitch cars don't move man, [Nombre 124] said – you come like a relaxed [Nombre 315], he's coming behind, get going, step on it, I'm going to go a little bit slowly here, get going, a second subject off-phone said to [Nombre 001] – all the law is there, buddy, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – how many?, they only told me they were patrol cars, the subject off-phone said – a pile, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – just a pile?, the subject off-phone said – I'll cover you, you go in and I'll cover you, [Nombre 083] said – the pile is down below, [Nombre 001] said off-phone – get in behind me, that's all, [Nombre 124] said – careful, fag, ha, they're there, those guys say at the one, dumbass, ah, they're calm and relaxed, dumbass, calm down (they talk about matters of no interest). Communication ends» (Emphasis supplied. Cf. f. 524 of the judgment).\n\nFrom the previous communication, in which [Name 029], alias «[Name 083]», and ([Name 013]), alias «[Name 124]», interact, another relevant aspect stands out, specifically the use of the term «ese mae» by the defendants to avoid openly alluding to the identity of [Name 001] in their communications; however, it is inferred that they are referring to that subject because he was traveling in the vehicle, since his voice was recorded in the recording. The judgment also refers to the use of that term as a protection mechanism aimed at avoiding revealing the identity of [Name 001], as part of the precautions adopted for his protection, without noting any error in the conclusion of the court of first instance (a quo), since there is abundant evidence in that regard. As part of the communications recorded in the judgment, from which it is inferred that the investigated individuals were referring to [Name 001] as «ese mae», sequence 0318381 generated on December 3, 2018, the date on which administrative police authorities apprehended him, is verified: «[Name 010] spoke with a female; from said conversation the following information of interest was obtained […] [Name 010] said – deay they just took away ese mae […]». From this event, it is also notable that [Name 161], alias «[Name 083]», informed the mother of [Name 001] of what happened and she scolded him because they did not take care of him, which also shows that the dynamics existing among the defendants were even known to the defendant's close circle: «From [Value 099]. Call identified with sequence number 0323443. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of an unreflected telephone service. This call was made at 9:04 p.m. on December 3, 2018.\" [Name 168] called [Name 083] and said - have they been released yet?, [Name 083] said – no, we are here waiting outside, they are checking the car superficially, [Name 168] said - but didn't, didn't they catch them with their hands?, [Name 083] said – no no no no no, everything, we were already coming inside, normal as always, [Name 168] said - were you, where were you?, [Name 083] said – here in the neighborhood, [Name 168] said – my god, wasn't there anyone there?. [Name 083] said – no, but no everything's fine everything's fine we're leaving now, it doesn't matter, it's routine the cop said, [Name 168] said - how how does he know, how does he know?, [Name 083] said - huh?, [Name 168] said - how does he know if they are going to release him?, [Name 083] said – no because they are already checking there and that's normal Mrs. [Name 168], we aren't carrying anything or anything, we never carry anything, [Name 168] said – but how strange why wasn't there anyone there keeping watch?, [Name 083] said – deay Mrs. [Name 168] I was coming with him and…, [Name 168] said – (unintelligible) that he cannot pass, [Name 083] said – I was coming with him from up there see and I asked and I asked and nobody told me anything and when we entered we did run into some motorcycles on one side so we went another way and there was a whole bunch more, [Name 168] said – and wasn't there anyone in the neighborhood? I hope no one (unintelligible) here, [Name 083] said – no, [Name 168] said – if there's no one here no one can enter, it was only you, [Name 083] said – only [Name 109] standing on the corner, that's what I'm going to talk to him about, [Name 168] said and he didn't say anything (unintelligible)?, [Name 083] said – that's what I'm going to talk to him about now because legally, like, I'm going to tell him look you I know you're going to scold me but I can't come with you from up there and have eyes down below too, I need you to put someone there to help me, [Name 168] said – and he has eyes only for watching the phone, uy I hope it's nothing my god, [Name 083] said – I'll let you know Mrs. [Name 168]; they say goodbye. Communication ends» (cf. pages 365 to 366 of the judgment). The communication also reveals that [Name 001], for his own protection, did not travel with anything that could compromise him, which is corroborated when [Name 161], alias [Name 083], indicates that they never carried anything.\n\nAnd it was known that [Name 001] was a person of interest to the authorities due to the criminal activity he carried out, as reflected in sequence 0255028, from line [Value 097], generated at 20:46 hours on that same day: «[Name 001] called a subject and told him – man, the subject told him – good evening young man, how are you?, [Name 001] said – man, don't cut me off, don't cut me off, don't cut me off, the subject said – ok, [Name 001] said – they are taking me out with an escort from the León to the delegation but I don't know which delegation because supposedly the regional director wants to talk to me, they are going to take me out I don't know why here don't cut me off because I'm going to keep it monitored wherever they take me, the subject said – ok, but who is taking you?, [Name 001] said – the GAO, the police, I'm going alone in my car, they are on motorcycles behind me, the subject said – ok, is there anything that compromises you?, [Name 001] said – absolutely nothing man, I'm clean, the subject said – which delegation?, [Name 001] said – I don't know, here I am following them, surely they are taking me to Tibás or I don't know where, they are telling me to leave, the subject said – but are you going with one of them?, [Name 001] said – no, I'm going alone in my car, they already searched my whole car, the subject said – ok, and where is the delegation?, [Name 001] said – in Tibás by the Saprisa stadium and there's one by the Mas x Menos in Tibás, the subject said – but you don't know which one?, [Name 001] said – I don't know which one because they're taking me, I don't know which one I'm going to, the subject said – ok but you are not going as, [Name 001] said – I'm going in a caravan, I have about ten motorcycles, about five are behind me and five in front, the subject said – ok but you aren't going as a detainee, [Name 001] said – no, no, I'm driving my car, they already checked my license and a policeman who checked me said everything is all good but I don't know you know they are probably going to set the dogs on me and all that stuff, the subject said – no, no, no, we agree but is there nothing that compromises you?, [Name 001] said – absolutely man, the subject said – ok go because you are not right now as a detainee, if you had some kind of warrant and referral, well you would immediately be handcuffed and they would be taking you in a paddy wagon, ok?, so let's see what the man intends to talk to you about, see because that kind of transfer is not common, see, a third subject outside the phone said – or tell him if he needs a lawyer to see what we come up with, the second subject said – see, now, if you need some lawyer to show up or something, now let's see, [Name 001] said – look, I'm going to talk because I'm in my car, the second subject said – correct, [Name 001] said – but they are going to take my phone away from me right now as soon as we arrive, wherever they take me, I don't know where they are taking me, the second subject said – obvious, [Name 001] said – look the other time they transferred me like that when I was in a place in Belén and they took me and searched my car and all that nonsense because that's just how it is and that's it […]» [sic] (cf. pages 370 to 372 of the judgment). The trial court (a quo) also established that on December 8, 2019, the defendants [Name 001], [Name 030], and [Name 022], were subjected to an unlawful act while they were at the Monge store, located in the vicinity of the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales. On that occasion, armed individuals entered the premises looking for the defendants, at whom they directed gunfire, which only managed to hit [Name 022] in one of his legs. The judicial police classified this event as \"an attack (atentado)\", a term used for clashes between rival gangs dedicated to illegal activities. After what happened, [Name 001] left the site before the authorities arrived; for their part, the other two defendants, when approached by the Organismo de Investigación Judicial, concealed that [Name 001] was present at the site, which was finally confirmed by reviewing the store's security cameras. It is therefore evident that they attempted to erase any trace of him linking him to the attack that occurred (cf. pages 760 to 766 of the judgment). The information presented and extracted from the trial court's judgment clearly reflects the subordination of the other accused individuals to [Name 001], and how a series of dynamics characteristic of a criminal organization orbited around him, in which the leader orders and directs, but is also protected so he can continue in those functions. Other communications contained in the judgment that reflect the submission to the instructions of [Name 001] are the following: «From [Value 098]. A call identified with sequence number 0318469. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 088]. This call was made at 04:17 hours on December 4, 2018. [Name 109] called [Name 010] and told him – where are you?, [Name 010] said – here with [Name 083] we're heading down now, [Name 109] said – well look that dude told me that I had to stay with you there, [Name 010] said – who, [Name 083]?, [Name 109] said – no, [Name 136], [Name 010] said – oh yes yes, [Name 109] said – but well no, if you want go over to [Name 124]'s place, I'm going to stay outside there for a while, at least until five-thirty, [Name 010] said – no no no we stay outside man, I'm already at the corner man, [Name 109] said – well I'm shitting, I'll be right out, [Name 010] said – put it on hijueputa. Call ends» (Emphasis added. Cf. page 491). In that conversation, [Name 007], alias \"[Name 109]\", refers to [Name 001] by the alias \"[Name 136]\", which was known from the criminal information report (noticia criminal). «From [Value 100]. A call identified with sequence number 0337010. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone line [Value 094]. This call was made at 20:42 hours on February 4, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 109] called [Nombre 124], [Nombre 124] said – hello, [Nombre 109] said – hello, [Nombre 124], [Nombre 124] said – hello, [Nombre 109] said – hello, [Nombre 124] said – go ahead, [Nombre 109] said – dude, where are you?, [Nombre 124] said – inside, why? do you need something?, [Nombre 109] said – dude, ask that guy if I can come over for a bit, [Nombre 124] said – okay, [Nombre 109] said – ask him, ask him so we can go right away, [Nombre 109] said – (mentions something unintelligible) maybe you bastard, [Nombre 109] said – ah, but ask him dude so that just to see if he says go or not dude because maybe he says no or something like that because I have to be here, [Nombre 124] said – just ask, you idiot, come on, [Nombre 109] said – ah, [Nombre 124] said – come on, come on, ask, [Nombre 109] said – no dude, because later he tells me not to, that I should have stayed there, and he'll chew me out, tell him dude, [Nombre 124] said – what a pain, then screw it, they continue talking without interest. The communication ends\" (Emphasis supplied. Cf. f. 498 of the judgment). In the preceding record, [Nombre 007], alias \"[Nombre 109]\", talks with ([Nombre 013]), alias \"[Nombre 124]\", whom he asks to request permission from [Nombre 001], alluded to as \"that guy (ese mae)\", to visit him and to be able to move from the site where he was. Another communication that exemplifies compliance with instructions from [Nombre 001] is the following: \"From [Valor 100]. Call identified with sequence number 0337500. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone line [Valor 174]. This call was made at 15:59 hours on the day of February 5, 2019. [Nombre 109] spoke with a subject identified as [Nombre 316], the same being held in La Reforma prison, from said call the following information of interest was obtained. •From minute 00:02:50 to minute 00:03:12. [Nombre 316] said – what's up dude, when are you coming to see me, you bastard dude, send [Nombre 065] dude, [Nombre 109] said – dude I don't know [Nombre 316] it's just that right now I'm on a thing here dude that I can't leave alone dude, that guy (ese mae) has me watching a thing dude, [Nombre 316] said – no no, it's all good, I understand you, you know man, I understand you daddy, [Nombre 109] said – and I can't neglect it but no no, you know, anytime, jerk\" (Emphasis supplied. Cf. f. 634). Telephone contacts in this sense were extensively documented in the judgment, clearly reflecting the leadership position exercised by [Nombre 001], whom the other defendants followed without question and from whom they sought authorization before making certain movements. On the other hand, the judgment also collected other communications from which it is possible to infer subordination to [Nombre 001] in tasks that are typical of criminal activity. The a quo, based on the evidence presented at trial, correctly established that [Nombre 029] was the person in charge of transporting and supplying drugs to other criminal organizations, among them those investigated in summaries 18-000017-1219-PE, case \"Bueno\", and 19-014179-0042-PE, case \"Cementerio\". As a result of the telephone interception, it was possible to establish that the form of coded language that said subject and the other accused used to refer to cocaine-type drugs was \"babies (bebés)\" or \"babys\". In light of that information, a communication such as the one recorded under sequence number 0205183, at 21:54 hours on the day of November 11, 2019, constitutes a clear and unequivocal indication that the supply of that prohibited material to third parties was carried out under the instruction of [Nombre 001]: \"[Nombre 161] alias '[Nombre 083]' received a call from [Nombre 007] alias '[Nombre 109]', user of telephone line [Valor 088]. [Nombre 225] said -hello, [Nombre 007] said -'[Nombre 083]', [Nombre 225] said -yes, [Nombre 007] said -dude, [Nombre 187] came here, [Nombre 099]'s nephew, for a baby (bebé), ask that guy to see, [Nombre 225] said -who is it, [Nombre 007] said -[Nombre 187] [Nombre 099]'s nephew, that [Nombre 099] sent him for a baby (bebé), [Nombre 225] said -well, tell him not yet, that I'll let him know right now, that guy (ese mae) isn't here, [Nombre 007] said -but he told me something like that, [Nombre 225] said -but no dude, that guy (ese mae) isn't here, and he hasn't told me anything, you jerk, I'm not going to give anything to anyone, anyway I think there isn't anything yet right now, tell him that I'll let him know, [Nombre 007] said -dude, but that guy has one stored from [Nombre 099] dude, that needs to be given to him, [Nombre 225] said -but until that guy (ese mae) comes, I'm not giving a damn thing if that guy doesn't tell me dude, [Nombre 007] said -but can't you ask him, don't you have his PIN, [Nombre 225] said -he's busy right now dude, tell him we'll look for him right now, when that guy (ese mae) comes\" [sic] (Emphasis supplied. Cf. f.645 of the judgment). In that communication, it is verified that [Nombre 007] asks [Nombre 161] for drugs to give to a third party, and he indicates that he cannot perform such an action without having the authorization of [Nombre 001], to whom, as was customary for those under investigation, he referred to as \"that guy (ese mae)\", which allows the direction of said subject in the criminal activity to be verified.\n\nAnother moment in which the accused's hierarchy is reflected occurred when [Name 015] asked his son [Name 022], alias \"[Name 123],\" to talk with [Name 001] to arrange protection for his residence, given that in that location there was \"galeta,\" which is a term used in the jargon of people dedicated to drug trafficking to refer to places where they store the illicit material. It is important to highlight that this circumstance was fully established in the judgment, in which the residence of those defendants was indicated as a storage site for the organization's supplies, among these, drugs. The communication of interest is the following: \"From [Value 087]. Call identified with sequence number 0360925. The intercepted telephone line maintains communication with the user of the telephone service [Value 103].\n\nThis call was made at 17:09 hours on June 13, 2019. [Name 022] alias “[Name 123]” spoke with “[Name 125]”, [Name 125] told him – [Name 022], [Name 123] told him – that, [Name 125] told him – papi you know I already investigated how the thing was with those men, [Name 123] told him with whom, [Name 125] told him with the ones who threw themselves on the roof, [Name 123] told him – I don’t know what the deal is, [Name 125] told him – it was lapicito and a little dude who also lives right around there, [Name 123] told him – who, [Name 125] told him – it was [Name 257], [Name 257] the thing was he came and told [Name 159] to calm down, to calm down but he was going to kill her dog, because [Name 159] was the one who told me “look [Name 015] it was people from [Name 153]” she tells me, from [Name 153] I don’t believe it I said, [Name 123] told him – uh-huh, [Name 125] told him – and she told me yes it was lapicito and a little dude on a red motorcycle she tells me but the other one [Name 181] I don’t know who he is but she says yes he hangs around a lot with [Name 010] that [Name 181], [Name 123] told him – and what was the deal, [Name 125] told him – and the thing is that the one who let them throw themselves in there because they had the law behind them was [Name 012] the one from tarzan this [Name 012] the one from behind where we are and that was the same day there was the problem and that was at five in the afternoon, that was when the shots started being heard up here, [Name 123] told him – uh-huh, uh-huh, [Name 125] told him – you remember they started shooting and whatnot and so then Mrs. [Name 074] says that no, that they wrecked her place, that they caved in her roof, and [Name 159] says that yes, that she saw them and that the guy came and that where he was going to kill the dog so it wouldn't bite her she says hey what, and that he tells her calm down ma'am eat quietly ma'am because I work for [Name 153] and that, and what are you going to do, and so then she tells him no papi you were running your mouth, you aren't with that guy, you think one is an idiot, so these people say everyone is bewitched, what they tell me is that why don't I go and show my face and why don't I talk to that guy so he can tell this guy, [Name 123] told him – don’t you get involved in anything, [Name 125] told him – listen I don't you know what the thing is, in a way I would talk but it's for us, for my house because I'm going to tell you something, just like, [Name 123] told him – but wait I already talked, I already told him, I already talked with him, I didn't know who the characters were but I already talked and he already gave me the green light that's it, [Name 125] told him – well, okay so green light now what you have to tell him, tell him it was lapicito and that lapicito used his name, that's why the old man came here angry to tell me that when someone uses that man's name, [Name 123] told him – mami dude stop going around saying I should tell things to him, no way, just leave it now I'm going to tell him look man I was told that well yes, and I got heated there at the house and all that, and next time give a heads-up, that's the only thing I'm going to tell him, [Name 125] told him – and another thing, and another what, [Name 123] told him – another what, [Name 125] told him – what was it he told me that and whatnot, [Name 123] told him – that I'm going to fuck that guy [Name 257] over and I'm going to say next time give a heads-up because I was heated about the house and then I say, I say if some son of a bitch comes in here I'll put a bullet in him, next time give a heads-up, [Name 125] told him – no give a heads-up no is that you can't be doing that because that's when the poor old lady got an attack and almost died, [Name 123] told him – yes, yes but you stop getting involved in things, if someone has to be told something it should be those people, [Name 125] told him – no, no the only thing I say is, I, my entrance has to be looked after and if my entrance which is out back no one is going to look after it for me then they better just screw me, because I'm going to tell you one thing darling I, if I don't look after my own ass no one looks after it for me, if we don't look after ourselves no one looks after us just like this piece of a son of a bitch and the other son of a bitch too they lend themselves to that shit like that they just come in to rob us because they're lent out because as they know there's cash here that they lend themselves and that they just come in while one sleeps only because back there there isn't a secure, [Name 123] told him – mami but if you're going to talk to me speak properly stop talking nonsense on the phone, [Name 125] told him – I'm not saying anything serious, nothing serious I'm saying, [Name 123] told him – nothing serious, look stop talking nonsense or don't even call me I already just talked that's it mami now, stay quiet, don't be stubborn, I already talked, [Name 125] told him – so look I'm also going to have to go talk the truth and that's better yes, [Name 123] told him – why do you have to come talk, [Name 125] told him – no so legally since you talked and don't give a damn I'm going to have to go, [Name 123] told him – that he doesn't give a damn I already talked I already told him and he already gave me the green light that's it, [Name 125] told him – yes green light, according to you he's going to break that great gentleman who is a papi to him, oh please [Name 022] that amazes me, it amazes me to know that according to you you believe that guy knowing it was this guy and that it was another character from his own, you know he's not going to do anything to them on the contrary they are welcome, [Name 123] told him – mami if you're going to call me call me and get serious stop talking nonsense, [Name 125] told him – okay, okay- Communication ends” [sic] (cf. pages 541 to 544 of the judgment).\n\nThe dialogue transcribed above reaffirms the hierarchy of [Nombre 001] and the fact that he had the last word in any type of disagreement that arose within the organization and even among the neighbors of the neighborhood where they had storage houses. Proof of this is that [Nombre 015] —known as «[Nombre 125]»— told her son that she was going to have to talk to «ese mae» so that he would know that two subjects were using his name «[Nombre 153]» to engage in improper attitudes with the local inhabitants. The foregoing is only part of the abundant evidentiary record set forth in the judgment by the a quo, which demonstrates the reasons why it opted to establish the criminal liability of [Nombre 001] in the activity of drug trafficking. Evidently, that determination was deduced from the examination of circumstantial evidence, an exercise that is valid and which, in the context of the criminal organization under investigation, was the only way to link him, given that, due to the precautions he maintained to leave no trace of the criminal activity, it was not possible to collect direct evidence against him. In the case of criminal organizations, in which the leadership generates a certain distancing from the material activities that consummate the crime, precisely to leave no trace of their participation, requiring direct evidence would imply generating impunity for those who deserve the greatest reproach. The foregoing in no way implies relaxing or reducing the standards for evaluating evidence, but rather adapting them to the specific criminal phenomenon, as occurred in this case, in which the liability of [Nombre 001] was deduced from a multiplicity of information, including the evaluation of his daily life and the way in which the other defendants became involved in it. Contrary to what was stated by the defense, this Chamber does not observe peripheral information that is beneficial to him and that has not been considered, but rather, on the contrary, all the dynamics analyzed pointed to the centrality of the accused in relation to the other defendants. Nor are there any contradictions or internal coherence problems in the construction of the reasoning that supports the accreditation of the defendant's criminal liability. The entire judgment was built on the premises indicated at the beginning of this considerando, namely: «(i) a criminal organization has an administrative structure equal or similar to one that executes lawful activities; (ii) circumstantial evidence is the ideal means to weigh the evidentiary material gathered during this adversarial proceeding; (iii) it is unnecessary for the leaders of a criminal clan to be the material executors of the criminal acts, if it is clear from the evidence that they knew of and authorized them; and (iv) the absence of direct evidence, by itself, does not delegitimize the state's punitive claim. It is under these premises that the evidentiary material subjected to the adversarial proceeding shall be evaluated». In the opinion of this Chamber, that logic followed in the judgment is consistent with the criminal phenomenon tried and explains why the lack of direct evidence or the direct attribution of some specific criminal act that the defense misses, are not an obstacle to determining the criminal liability of the defendant for the acts charged. The judgment is a logical-legal unit that cannot be analyzed in a fragmented manner. Said document, evaluated jointly, allows establishing that the criminal participation of [Nombre 001], in the leadership position in which he was placed, is fully established, without admitting any margin of doubt in his favor. On the other hand, the defense considers that the transfer of the accusation to the judge of the intermediate stage constitutes an absolute defect, without notifying their client about the related cases 18-000017-1219-PE, case «Bueno»; 19-014179-0042-PE, case «Cementerio» and 19-000160-0622-PE, case «[Nombre 269]». However, after examining the case file, this Chamber concludes that it is not correct. Regarding this aspect, the first thing that must be pointed out is that procedural forms are not an end in themselves, but rather are directed at protecting the fundamental rights of the parties. By virtue of the foregoing, a declaration of nullity should only occur when an effective and verifiable impact on the sphere of rights of any of the participants in the process has been generated; otherwise, it would become a nullity for nullity's sake. In the case before us, the injury to the right of defense claimed by the appellant is not verified. The study of the case file has allowed establishing that the linkage of the present summary proceeding with cases 18-000017-1219-PE, 19-014179-0042-PE and 19-000160-0622-PE —and others to which the defense has not made reference— was fully documented prior to the accused persons, including [Nombre 001], being arrested and giving their statement before the Public Prosecutor's Office. The nexus with summary proceeding 18-000017-1219-PE began to take shape from the early stages of the investigation, as the first reference to it is located in report IP-033-EN-19, dated January 25, 2019 (cf. p. 185 of the investigation file). Later, in reports IP-128-EN-19, dated April 17, 2019; IP-227-EN-19, dated July 15, 2019; IP-094-EN-20, dated April 16, 2020 and IP-138-EN-20, dated May 21, 2020, the link between both matters is ratified (cf. pp. 258, 263, 326, 349, 556, 1385, 1637 of the investigation file). In these documents, it was already identified that the structure investigated in this summary proceeding supplied drugs to the one led by alias «[Nombre 355]», who is none other than [Nombre 137]. Furthermore, the use of the term «babys», as a form of coded language to refer to cocaine-type drugs, had also already been identified, as well as the role of [Nombre 029] as a transporter of the shipments. The intervention of a woman named [Nombre 101], alias «[Nombre 051]», as one of the contacts of ([Nombre 004]) with the organization of alias «Enano», was also documented. Regarding summary proceeding 19-017179-0042-PE «Caso Aserrí», it is verified that in report IP-227-EN-19, dated July 15, 2019, in the section «Cuarto», a broad breakdown was made of the investigation proceedings carried out by the judicial police as a result of the connection with this case, starting with the surveillances and follow-ups carried out on [Nombre 029] in the first half of May 2019, which led to a follow-up being conducted on the 16th of that same month from Ciudadela León XIII to the Aserrí sector, which culminated in a significant drug seizure —2525 doses of cocaine from a subject identified as [Nombre 105] and more than 2 kilograms of cocaine, as a result of the search conducted at the dwelling with which he had contact—. It is also important to highlight that at the time that report was prepared, a clearly established police hypothesis already existed, according to which the organization investigated in this case, led by [Nombre 001], who was known by his aliases «[Nombre 084]» or «[Nombre 136]», was in charge of supplying drugs, which they referred to as «bebés», to the criminal organizations prosecuted under summary proceedings 18-000017-1219-PE and 19-0171790042-PE, through a similar dynamic, namely through [Nombre 029], who made the deliveries in the Mitsubishi vehicle, license plate [Valor 068] and around midnight (cf. p. 556 of the investigation file). Something similar occurs with the investigation directed against [Nombre 268], alias «[Nombre 269]» which corresponds to criminal summary proceeding 19-000160-0622-PE. Said subject was mentioned, repeatedly, from the initial stages of the investigation as a person linked to [Nombre 001]. In that sense, police report IP-227-EN-19, dated July 15, 2019, refers to it, in which alias «[Nombre 269]» was identified as a subordinate of [Nombre 001] and a possible drug seller (cf. pp. 407, 408, 409 of the investigation file). In police report IP-383-EN-19, dated November 15, 2019, it was already announced that searches had been carried out at different drug sale points related to alias «[Nombre 269]», which took place on November 6, 2019 (cf. p. 727 of the investigation file), which was addressed in detail in report IP-359-EN-19, in the third section, where the investigation proceedings carried out were explained, through which both summary proceedings were connected by the police (cf. pp. 949 to 967 of the investigation file). Finally, it must be indicated that in report IP-138-EN-20, dated May 21, 2020, in the third section, all the cases with which this matter was linked by the police were detailed, among them those that the defense misses, addressed under the titles «3.1 Sumaria 18-000017-1219-PE, Caso “El Bueno”, Infracción Ley de Psicotrópicos», «3.3 Sumaria 19-014179-0042-PE, Caso “Cementerio”, Infracción Ley de Psicotrópicos», «3.4 Sumaria 19-000160-0622-PE. Caso “Varela”, Infracción Ley de Psicotrópicos» (cf. pp. 1706 to 1747 of the investigation file). All this information was added to the case file prior to the arrest of the accused persons being carried out, that is, it formed part of the evidentiary record brought to their attention at the moment they were formally charged by the Public Prosecutor's Office after their arrest. From the foregoing, it follows then that it is not true what was stated by the defense counsel, in the sense that the accused learned of the connection with those summary proceedings until months after his arrest, when the certified copies of the files were added, because the truth is that the link was fully documented in the reports prepared by the judicial police, so a review of the case file was sufficient to become aware of that information. It is also claimed that at the time [Nombre 001] gave his investigatory statement, only mention was made of two of the aforementioned summary proceedings, specifically 18-000017-1219-PE and 19-014179-0042-PE. This Chamber observes that on that occasion, the following was detailed: «[...] Finally, the rights that assist him are listed, as regulated in articles 82 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which consist of being the leader of a criminal organization dedicated to trafficking in narcotics and money laundering based in the Ciudadela León XIII, for which there are two events described in the police reports referring to case 18-000017-1219-PE and case 19-014179-0042-PE. Regarding the crime of money laundering, the acts attributed to him are described in police report 25-SLC- C1-20, from the Money Laundering Section» (cf. pp. 2300 to 2301 of the main file). We see then that the formal charging of the accused was clear insofar as he was identified as the leader of a criminal organization dedicated to drug trafficking and money laundering. Although it is true that on that occasion only two summary proceedings were alluded to as those related to the present one, that does not imply that the subsequent inclusion of others in the accusation entailed the need for a new formal charge, since they did not constitute a new crime, but rather were part of the evidentiary support for the same criminal phenomenon that was initially reported to him, namely drug trafficking and his role as leader. In any case, as indicated supra, the police reports already had a link registered with various summary proceedings, not only the two that were recorded in the record of the investigatory statement. Under this approach, the incorporation of the certified copy of those summary proceedings constitutes only additional evidence, which ratifies the information already contained in the case file. It is not the duty of the Public Prosecutor's Office to document the transfer given to the parties regarding each new piece of evidence added to the file, much less in organized crime cases where the evidence is abundant. A claim of this nature is totally impractical and would generate undue delays. Procedural regulations only impose an obligation of that nature regarding expert reports, when their execution has not been previously notified, as provided for in numeral 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the rest of the evidence, the general rule is that the inclusion of the data corresponding to the case file (reports, minutes, certified copies or any other type of documentation), to which the parties have access, is sufficient for them to become aware of its existence and content. The review of the case file allows establishing that the certified copies of summary proceedings 18-000017-1219-PE and 19-000160-0622-PE were part of the case file since September 30, 2021 (cf., pp. 3279 and 3280), while the one corresponding to case was added on October 11, 2021 (cf. p. 3376). For its part, the prosecution's accusation was filed before the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José until December 2, 2022 (cf. p. 4025); that is, the parties had a little over a year to become aware of the content of that evidence, which constitutes sufficient time to prepare their defense, with a view to the subsequent stages of the process. In addition to the above, in the accusatory request, the digital certification of cases 18-000017-1219-PE «Caso Bueno»; 19-000160-0622-PE «Caso [Nombre 269]» and 19017179-0042-PE «Caso Aserrí» (the defense refers to this in its appeal as «Caso Cementerio») was offered in points 65, 66 and 68 of the description of the documentary evidence (cf. pp. 4005 vto and 4006 fte of the investigation file).\n\nSubsequently, with the scheduling of the preliminary hearing by the Criminal Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, effected by the order of 9:52 a.m. on January 20, 2023 (cf. folios 4051 verso to 4054 of the investigation file), the proceedings and the evidence gathered during the investigation were made available to the parties for their examination. Thus, the offer of that evidence for the trial stage was known to the defense at the moment it appeared before the judge of the intermediate stage. Although it is not the situation presented in this case, if it were considered that the charges filed in the investigation stage were limited or partial, the communication of the accusation and its supporting evidence would have remedied the deficiency. In this regard, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in resolution No. 2004-350, of 11:02 a.m. on April 2, 2004, which this court shares. On that occasion, it was stated: “The right to be informed of the charges (derecho a la intimación) has been defined as: ‘... the right granted to a citizen accused as the perpetrator of a crime to know in detail the facts of which he is accused, as well as the identity of the official or authority under whose jurisdiction and competence his case is being processed.’ (Ferrandino Tacsan, Álvaro and Porras Villalta, Mario, ‘La Defensa del Imputado,’ in: Reflexiones sobre el Nuevo Proceso Penal, Mundo Gráfico, San José, 1996, p. 303). The right of every accused person to receive information about the charges brought against them is an essential guarantee of due process, and its non-observance constitutes an absolute defect, as stipulated in subsection a) of Article 175 of the Código Procesal Penal. However, as this Chamber has pointed out on repeated occasions: ‘... the existence of a procedural defect, even if it constitutes an absolute nullity, should not be declared as such when there is no procedural interest in doing so (See, for example, Appeals for Annulment No. 261-F of 9:50 a.m. on December 20, 1985; No. 208-F of 9:45 a.m. on August 7, 1987; No. 330-F of 9:00 a.m. on November 9, 1990; and No. 83-F of 8:55 a.m. on March 20, 1992). Now then, this interest is lacking in those cases in which the repetition of the defective act brings no procedural advantage to the party alleging it, or to the object of the proceeding.’ (No. 984 of 10:29 a.m. on October 31, 2003). It is therefore necessary to analyze the particularities of the alleged procedural defect in the specific case, in order to determine whether prejudice has been caused. While it is observed that on January 5, 2000, at the moment of receiving the investigative statement (declaración indagatoria) of [Nombre 318], the complaint only included the conduct committed to the detriment of [Nombre 319], when [Nombre 318] was notified of the accusatory text, the claimed omission was remedied, as he was informed of the charges (intimarse) regarding the facts in which [Nombre 320], of the same surnames, appears as the aggrieved party. The current procedural system regulating the matter provides for the investigative statement as the first formal notification of charges (imputación formal) of the facts, and there is no doubt that the appropriate course is to carry it out at the start of the proceeding, so that the accused has the opportunity to participate in the production of evidence, exercise control over the investigation, and exercise their defense—both material and technical—from the early stages of the investigation. In this particular situation, however, it is necessary to analyze whether the irregularity of the belated notification of charges for the lewd acts to the detriment of [Nombre 320] prejudiced the accused, such that it warrants annulling the conviction regarding those events. In this regard, it must be emphasized that despite the noted error concerning the lack of formal notification of charges (intimación) of the facts at the initial stage, the formal notification of all charges did occur upon the transfer of the accusation (acusación), a moment at which the factual framework attributed was set forth in a precise and detailed manner, including the facts where [Nombre 320] figured as the victim, as well as its basis, applicable regulations, and the elements of conviction supporting it. With the transfer of the accusatory document, [Nombre 318] was enabled to: ‘... a) Object the request made by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) or the complainant, on formal or substantial grounds. b) Raise exceptions. c) Request the definitive or provisional dismissal, the suspension of the trial process, the imposition or revocation of a precautionary measure, or the advance presentation of evidence. d) Request the application of the abbreviated procedure, a criterion of opportunity, or conciliation. e) Offer evidence for the public oral trial, in accordance with the requirements set forth for the accusation, and f) Raise any other issue that allows for better trial preparation.’ (Article 317 of the Código Procesal Penal). At the preliminary hearing, the technical defense counsel for the accused appeared, stating that they did not object in any way to the accusation (folios 68 and 69). The appellant does not indicate at this point what prejudice the notification of some of the events at a time subsequent to the proper one caused their client. As the author Fernando Cruz Castro points out: ‘... Nullity for nullity's sake has lost its validity; respect for formalities only makes sense if they ensure the effective application of the principles governing due legal process. In each case, as the Criminal Chamber of Appeals has done, it must be evaluated whether the breach of forms has caused irremediable harm to due process. Nullity should not be the instrument of control that ensures the validity of proceduralism...’ (La nulidad por la nulidad, la justicia pronta y cumplida y la vigencia del formalismo procesal, Mundo Gráfico, San José, 1994, pp. 18-19). The purpose pursued by demanding that charges be formally communicated once the procedure has begun is to allow the defendant to exercise their full right to defense, offer evidence, and combat the accusatory theory and the elements of conviction against them. In this particular case, it is not observed how the purpose of the act would have been obstructed by its fulfillment after the opportune procedural moment, such that, as no harm was caused to the accused, the appropriate course is to dismiss the first and second grounds for annulment on procedural form.” The foregoing precedent even alludes to a more burdensome situation, because it was verified that facts constituting a new crime were not formally communicated to the accused in the investigation stage but were duly communicated to the defendant with the transfer of the accusation, prior to the holding of the preliminary hearing. With much greater reason, in the case at hand, the need for a new formal notification of charges by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) is ruled out, after incorporating the certified copies of the parallel cases, which are evidence of the same crime for which [Nombre 001] had already been informed of the charges. It is not possible to verify that a true impairment of the accused's right to defense was caused, as he was identified from the outset as the leader of an organization dedicated to drug trafficking and money laundering. It is reiterated that these certified copies do not constitute a new crime, nor do they constitute unknown evidence, since, as already explained, the connection with those other matters was documented throughout several police reports that were part of the file when the accused gave his investigative statement. This same complaint was addressed by the trial court on the occasion of a protest for defective procedural activity filed by the technical defense counsel of [Nombre 001], which was declared without merit, as was indeed appropriate. Part of the arguments discussed regarding that decision allude to the fact that the defendant did not appear as an accused in cases 18-000017-1219-PE, 19-000160-0622-PE, and 19-0171790042-PE, which was the reason it was not appropriate to take his investigative statement. Although the trial court’s reasoning is somewhat confusing, the decision it ultimately made was appropriate in light of the particularities of the case. Indeed, none of the aforementioned preliminary investigations were directed against [Nombre 001], which is the reason he did not appear as an accused in any of those files and, consequently, it was not appropriate to summon him to give an investigative statement in them. The connection to those proceedings was made based on the investigation developed in the present case, in which it was determined that the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001] supplied drugs to those other structures. Hence, at the police level, in the prosecutorial accusation, and even in the trial judgment, these preliminary investigations are referred to as “materializations,” which is nothing more than the verification of criminal activity by confirming the existence of the material object of the crime, that is, drugs for unauthorized use. Therefore, although [Nombre 001] did not appear as an accused in those matters, the information derived from them does support his status as an accused in this preliminary investigation, because it constitutes evidence for those purposes. However, the true reason why it was not appropriate to take his investigative statement regarding those preliminary investigations is because, as already indicated, they do not constitute a new crime of which the accused was not informed at the moment he was charged, but rather evidence of the same charges that had already been communicated to him. By virtue of the foregoing, the concurrence of the absolute defect alleged is not verified. Regarding the case known as “Varela,” which corresponds to preliminary investigation 19-000160-0622-PE, in which [Nombre 268], alias “[Nombre 269],” appeared as the accused, the defense questions that [Nombre 001] is not mentioned. It is true that in that preliminary investigation, there is no information that directly links [Nombre 001], as he was not one of the investigative targets; however, this does not imply that both proceedings were not linked, insofar as the trial court explained in the judgment that the connection between both matters was made based on the property used by alias “[Nombre 269]” to carry out the retail drug sale activity, which was supplied to him by [Nombre 001]: “First of all, the person with the alias ‘[Nombre 269]’ must be contextualized, along with their direct relationship as a close associate and trusted person of Mr. [Nombre 001], to the point of being a member of his criminal structure. In the following call, it can be noted how alias ‘[Nombre 269]’ is close to Mr. [Nombre 001] to such an extent that [Nombre 081], his sentimental partner, reproaches him for the fact that [Nombre 001] gave the Garabito house to ‘[Nombre 269]’: ‘From [Valor 165]. Call identified with sequence number 0264946. The intervened telephone line communicates with the user of a non-reflected telephone service. This call was made at 9:24 p.m. on May 21, 2019.\n\n[Nombre 001] spoke with [Nombre 081], at minute 03:55 [Nombre 081] said I found out that [Nombre 075] also went with his wife and children, they continued talking about topics irrelevant to the investigation until minute 21:15 when [Nombre 001] asked – and what about the house in the neighborhood, what happened, [Nombre 081] answered – I still have it because what's the problem, what's the problem, what's up, are you going to buy it from me, I'm selling it for twelve, [Nombre 001] said – with [Nombre 322]'s house, [Nombre 081] said are you going to buy it from me, [Nombre 081] said are you going to buy it from me, [Nombre 001] said – sell it, damn it, [Nombre 081] said – I wouldn't sell it even if I were crazy, not even if you bought it from me, do you want to sweet-talk me like you sweet-talked my mom with the Garabito house to give it to [Nombre 269], [Nombre 001] Said – that I sweet-talked your mom, remember that you spent all of your mom's money, don't come giving me grief, [Nombre 081] said you idiot what did you tell me, I don't forget what you told me, [Nombre 001] asked – what did I tell you, [Nombre 081] answered – let's sell that house because I've had a lot of expenses and sell your mom's joint, I mean you charged her for everything, [Nombre 001] said oh you idiot, [Nombre 081] said – I lent you the money and you haven't paid me back, [Nombre 001] said - what an idiot, [Nombre 081] get serious man, [Nombre 081] said – you don't connect what you say, if you don't remember rewind the tape, [Nombre 001] said – listen listen how cute, [Nombre 081] said – rewind the tape man, [Nombre 001] said – you started asking for money for your expenses and for everything and I tell you well you're going to have to get it from that house, because I'm not going to keep giving you more, your mom was asking for a million, asking for a million and a half, asking around here, like you say as if she were my wife, they continued talking about topics irrelevant to the investigation\" [sic] (cfr. fs. 693 to 694 of the judgment). In addition, the judgment also reports that the vehicle used by alias \"[Nombre 269]\" was registered under the name of another of the defendants, specifically ([Nombre 016]), who was one of the persons who acted as a front person (testaferro), information that was provided by witness [Nombre 323]. This circumstance is relevant because the investigation revealed, and was thus held as proven, that the criminal organization used different people as front persons (testaferros) in whose names the organization's assets were placed, which were later destined for the use and enjoyment of other members. As has been indicated, it is logical and expected that the connection of the leader of a criminal organization is not generated through direct evidence, due to the care he applies in his actions to avoid being caught, which is why other sources of information that allow him to be linked to the criminal activity must be taken into consideration. In the case of alias \"[Nombre 269]\", the subject's constant contact with [Nombre 001]'s organization, to the point that the latter supplied him with the property in which he subsequently carried out the illicit activity, is a clear and unequivocal indication of collusion in the criminal actions. The defense also points out that witnesses [Nombre 093],\n\n[Nombre 324], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 142], [Nombre 325], [Nombre 326] and [Nombre 092] declared that they had not heard or known of communications in which [Nombre 001] gave express orders to the remaining members of the organization to carry out the illicit activities. It is reiterated that criminal organizations function through a division of functions, which is why it is not necessary for the leader to issue instructions for the execution of each individual act, because his subordinates act based on the role and tasks assumed within the structure. What is relevant, then, is precisely to prove the obedience of the other defendants in relation to their leader, an aspect that was fully established. The defense argues that the fact that there were no seizures within this summary proceeding, whether through flagrante delicto arrests, controlled drug buys, or seizures from third parties, constitutes an impediment to considering the crime as established. This position, although understandable given the interests represented by the appellant, is limited and alien to a criminal phenomenon such as the one addressed in this case. The drug trafficking that was being executed was, for the most part, on a medium scale, in quantities that were not negligible, as kilograms of cocaine were supplied to other organizations, which they referred to as \"babys\" or \"bebés\". Seizures of drugs trafficked in larger volumes are not obtained with traditional investigation techniques characteristic of street-level drug trafficking, such as controlled buys or seizures from third parties. Circumstantial evidence, including the interception of telephone communications, is usually one of the main tools for proving illicit acts committed by organizations operating on a larger scale. An approach to one of the members of the organization to obtain drugs in the quantities that were being moved was clearly not viable, except through more specialized and complex investigation techniques, such as the use of an undercover agent. The way in which the trafficking was finally proven, through the connection with other summary proceedings in which drug seizures were indeed carried out, constitutes a valid investigation technique. It is recalled that our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of evidence (principio de libertad probatoria), which allows facts to be proven by any lawful means of proof and, in this case, there are no reasons to question the legality of the evidence used as support for the conviction. The defense alleges that the questions and answers posed to witness [Nombre 092], who acted as the director of the investigation at the police level, were not transcribed. As a result of this omission, it claims that the judgment recorded false information. In this regard, it is necessary to highlight that the descriptive evidentiary reasoning does not consist of a literal transcription of the evidence. In the case of testimonial evidence, what must be recorded is a brief summary of the depositions, as provided in Article 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Regarding the detail of the questions that the defense refers to and which, in its judgment, discredit the proof of the facts, they actually do not generate that effect. Even in an exercise of hypothetically including what the witness said in response to those 23 defense questions, the conclusion regarding the criminal liability of [Nombre 001] remains unalterable. And it is that these inquiries were directed at establishing the non-existence of direct evidence compromising [Nombre 001], which, as already indicated, was recognized by the trial court, as well as some peripheral circumstances that do not constitute the central core of the accusation, for example, that the vehicle make Mitsubishi, model Montero, license plate [Valor 068] had compartments designed to hide drugs (fact 4.1), when what is relevant about the accusation is that the vehicle was used to transport drugs. As has been extensively explained, direct evidence of the criminal activities or communications in which [Nombre 001] gave direct orders to the other defendants was not only not essential, but it was not susceptible to being obtained, given the care that said subject took in his interactions and behavior in general. The submission of the defendants and the fulfillment of directives issued by [Nombre 001] is deduced from the joint and concatenated reading of the evidence, as was indeed done. The defense again invokes a violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment (principio de correlación entre acusación y sentencia) because, in its opinion, the attributed facts were not proven. Should this circumstance occur, the defect would be of a different nature, but not one of correlation, because this implies a declaration of criminal liability based on circumstances or facts not charged, which does not happen in this case, so much so that the defense itself recognizes the identity in the factual account of the accusatory requirement and the instance ruling. Generically, it states that what was held as proven at trial is contrary to what was accused, which stems from its own reading of the evidence and its position regarding the case, according to which direct evidence is essential for proving the illicit acts attributed to its client, which, as already indicated, is incorrect, because the proof of the facts based on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, is in accordance with the system of freedom of evidence (libertad probatoria) that governs us. The defense reiterates complaints regarding the filing of charges, but this aspect was extensively referenced when resolving the second ground of its challenge, to which it is referred for reading. With regard to the defense's theory of the case (tesis de descargo), which in the appellant's view was not considered, as well as the evidence offered in its support, the argument is also unfounded. Note that the judgment expressly states: \"DEFENSE THEORIES REGARDING DRUG TRAFFICKING. Regarding [Nombre 001]. The defendant [Nombre 001] in the exercise of his material defense focused his statement on denying that he had dedicated himself to leading a criminal organization devoted to the sale of drugs and justifying the origin of his income as the product of the sale of 3 properties, it being from said money and its investment in the placement of informal loans that he managed to increase his assets; the topic of the increase in assets from the money obtained from the sale of the properties will be analyzed in the section on money laundering (legitimación de capitales). Now, with regard to denying being the leader of a criminal organization devoted to the sale of drugs, the ruling has already been extensive in analyzing and substantiating the reasons why the facts of the accusation are held as proven to a degree of certainty. Despite the foregoing, it is appropriate to summarize that [Nombre 001] in part of his statement admits that certain members of his organization did indeed work for him, as in the case of [Nombre 029], [Nombre 161], alias [Nombre 210], among others, who were dedicated to lawful tasks such as caretaking of homes, care and transport of his children, deliveries of food to the El Buen Pastor correctional center. Regarding such tasks, they indeed occurred in that manner; however, it should not be forgotten that these persons, in addition to the lawful tasks, also had their role in the criminal structure according to each of the events that were held as proven against them. Mr. [Nombre 001] did indeed lead the criminal structure in question; one must question that out of all the members of the criminal organization, the only one who did not render accounts to anyone was Mr. [Nombre 001]; his home was the center of operations; in various calls it was called \"the office\". Apart from the entire dynamic of the intercepted calls, it is worth analyzing one from alias \"[Nombre 210]\" which is recorded in report IP-128-EN-19, a call in which a female asks alias \"[Nombre 210]\" about his boss, it was transcribed like this: \"sorry, I'm going to be a bit nosy but your boss. what does he do?\n\nSo, I don't know, I've always had that doubt, [Nombre 210] said – search on google for the famous [Nombre 084], femenina said – [Nombre 084]?, femenina said – oh ok, [Nombre 210] said – look him up, and then I'll tell you...he is called [Nombre 327], femenina said – mmmm, oh yes I, actually my grandmother lives there in Garabito and she is a very respectable lady, one of those older ladies that walk around and people greet them, [Nombre 210] said – actually we sometimes hang out around there, femenina said – Yeah? But where, by the chapel or what?, [Nombre 210] said – by the orange chapel, femenina said – mmm uh-huh, [Nombre 210] said – have you seen that chapel?, femenina said – yes of course around there, [Nombre 210] said – my boss built that one, he donated the money, femenina said – your boss built the chapel? Listen, [Nombre 210] said – aha...\"; we see then how alias \"[Nombre 210]\" reveals who the boss is and also about his economic solvency, likewise a call in which [Nombre 001] talks with his sentimental partner in communication under sequence 0217180, \"… [Nombre 081] said- all those guys who work with you and everything, oof no it's embarrassing, [Nombre 001] said- but it's them because why do you care what those assholes do, [Nombre 081] said- you raise crows and they peck your eyes out, [Nombre 001] said- aha and what, [Nombre 081] said- you make them your way...\", in the previous excerpt [Nombre 081], sentimental partner of [Nombre 001], demonstrated the hierarchical position that he has within the narco organization, as well as the total control of the actions of all the members of the group, where he is the one who decides the functions of each of them, as detected in the communication with sequence number 0216485, \"…[Nombre 001] said -he's going to bring it right now, \"[Nombre 083]\" is coming right now, he's going to pick you up at your house right now…\", as well as in the communication under sequence 0100465, \"…[Nombre 001] extra call said -Tell that son of a bitch \"[Nombre 083]\" why he hasn't paid me the damn number of \"[Nombre 252]\" man…\", the foregoing being a clear demonstration that [Nombre 001] is the one who issued the orders within the criminal structure. Attorney Francisco Mena Ayales argued that there was no seizure of a single dose of drugs, which is not true, he must be referred to the parallel cases and the drugs seized in the raids. In another of his arguments, the defense lawyer castigates the accusation for considering it imprecise and devoid of imputation, the court dismisses the argument since the conducts described in the accusation do impute conducts that qualify as the crime of drug trafficking, the same committed in co-authorship» [sic] (cfr. fs. 787 to 789 of the judgment). Despite the fact that what was said by the trial court was neither broad nor profuse, it is sufficient to understand that, in light of the abundant evidence existing against the defendant, the defense's thesis was so weak that it did not give rise to any doubt in his favor. Note that the trial court considered that it was not possible to maintain that the other members of the criminal organization, regarding whom their participation in the drug trafficking activity was proven, casually linked up with [Nombre 001] for other types of activities, such as informal money lending. In that sense, the trial court determined that this financial activity developed outside the law was, in reality, another of the mechanisms employed by the investigated parties to erase the money trail and give it an appearance of legitimacy, a conclusion that is correct and adequate, because that is what is deduced from the evidence. Although the court did not address in greater detail the evidence provided by the defense, regarding the money lending that [Nombre 001] carried out, that circumstance also does not have the virtue of detracting from the conclusion reached, regarding the origin of the money used for the acquisition of high-value goods that the defendant possessed. Regarding the origin of the money, the judgment was categorical that it came from the illicit activity of drug trafficking, with which this Chamber agrees.\n\nAs already detailed in other sections of this pronouncement, the evidence presented showed that the organization moved drugs on a medium scale, which it supplied to other criminal organizations and for which it received approximately ₡5,100,000 per kilogram of cocaine placed in that market, which constitutes a not insignificant amount of money and justifies the economic profile that its leader displayed. The trial court considered that what was said by [Nombre 001], regarding that he carried out an informal money lending activity, was real, because that aspect was even documented through the telephone interceptions and the witnesses' statements. However, it considered that it was an activity derived from the profits obtained as a product of drug trafficking, so that it resulted in an additional way to erase the money trail, a conclusion that, in effect, is derived from the combined examination of the evidence. Regarding the construction of the dwelling seized from [Nombre 001], located in Ciudadela León XIII, the judgment concluded that what was said by the defendant in his statement at trial, regarding that the property was settled on a single estate owned by his mother, was not true, insofar as the expert and testimonial evidence referred to the fact that it encompassed more surrounding lots: «what in definitive the court has held as accredited as we have been reporting, that dwelling was the operations center of the criminal structure, reflecting with this the economic power that he possesses and that according to the judicial police it was the dwelling of his mother who it was verified had moved to reside with her children in the province of Heredia in other properties and finally with those communications it was determined that [Nombre 001] had required the service of an engineering professional, for the preparation of the dwelling's plans and that added also to sequence 0339672, where [Nombre 007] alias \"[Nombre 109]\" made the reference that he was going to work on a house that they are going to build there for that guy \"[Nombre 153]\", as [Nombre 001] was identified. Finally, due to all the aforementioned, the court verified the high economic value of said dwelling, which is reflected through the appraisal expert report of the Forensic Engineering Department of the Judicial Investigation Organization, which was documented by means of Expert Opinion DCF:20200745-ING, visible on folios 3043 to 3066, of Volume VI of the Investigation file, it being established that the previously referenced dwelling maintained a value of (501,996,130.78) millions of colones, the expert mentioning that this value was obtained regarding the value of the works via market, as well as it was also used as a reference the \"Manual of Unitary Base Values per Constructive Typology\" of the year 2021, published by the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica, ONT), of the General Directorate of Taxation, of the Ministry of Finance, where the New Replacement Value (Valor de Reposición Nuevo, VRN) is initially determined, to subsequently carry out the corresponding studies of the useful life of each structure and other data of interest to obtain the Net Replacement Value (Valor Neto de Reposición, VNR) of said structures; it was further established in said expert report, that in effect as mentioned previously in this judgment, the constructed structure not only comprises the property with the Registered Plan No. [Valor 019], but also four more properties, which present the following registered plans: [Valor 020], [Valor 175], [Valor 022] and [Valor 176], which in definitive is totally contrary to that stated by [Nombre 001] in his statement during the debate, when he stated that that construction had been raised only on his mother's lot or estate» [sic] (cfr. fs. 1012 and 1013 of the judgment. Highlighting does not correspond to the original). As reflected in the preceding passage, the court relied on expert evidence, which has not been invalidated and which established the value of the property, taking into consideration, among other factors, the number of estates it covered, so the defendant's statements give way to the forcefulness of this evidentiary element. Finally, the defense complains that facts were held as proven in which [Nombre 046] participated, who died prior to the trial's realization. However, the appellant forgets that in the debate stage it is possible to carry out the historical reconstruction of facts in which persons who did not appear at trial participated, whether due to absence, contumacy, because they were previously judged or, as in this case, because they died, which in no way implies a judgment in absentia.\n\nNote that, in the case of [Nombre 046], his criminal responsibility was not declared; rather, it was established that he was a member of the criminal organization, within which he performed various tasks aimed at achieving the illicit purposes, a conclusion derived from the evidence and which was feasible because it formed part of the factual description. Based on the review carried out, this Chamber concludes that the conviction adequately and sufficiently supports the criminal participation of [Nombre 001] in the aggravated drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas agravado) activity that he led. Furthermore, none of the complaints directed against the trial judgment are admissible, since the defects attributed to it are not present. Consequently, the third ground of the appeal filed in favor of [Nombre 001] by the private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales is hereby declared without merit.\n\n**Sixth ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Nombre 001].** It claims \"Lack of reasoning for the penalty regarding the determination of the amount of the prison sentences.\" It indicates that his client was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment for the illicit act of drug trafficking, but the reasoning is improper, because it was limited to the exposition of the objective and subjective elements of the offense, without adding other factors that justify the imposition of that amount. He adds that a series of subjective considerations by the tribunal were set forth, which do not allow understanding why a greater reproach was made. He describes that reference was made to the broad time period in which the acts occurred, the excessive harm to the protected legal interest, and the large quantities of drugs. He questions that reference is made to the fact that a lot of drug was trafficked, when the truth is that no seizure from his client or any of the convicted persons could be established. He transcribes a passage from the judgment, then asserts that the determination of the penalty was based on subjective and arbitrary criteria. He criticizes the affirmation of the use of young people in the criminal activity, when this is not derived from the evidence. He affirms that some of the accused persons are young, but they do not have mental problems that prevent them from making decisions, such as being part of a criminal organization. He considers that there was an assessment based on hatred against his client. He disputes that it was said that the organization had a large number of members, because it is a subjective criterion, and that an increase in penalty was justified because the accused shouted at his collaborators. He believes that, apparently, this last circumstance is reproached to the accused because the tribunal felt personally attacked. He asserts that the judgment is based on lies, because it established that the drug sales were conducted in the dwelling where the accused grew up, which was not proven. He adds that the imposition of a penalty is an act of state power that affects fundamental rights, which must be reasoned. He indicates that deprivation of liberty should be avoided when less severe alternatives exist. He asserts that the lack of intellectual reasoning regarding the quantum of the penalty is notorious. As a grievance, he points out that the defective reasoning of the penalty led to the imposition of a sentence of 20 years of imprisonment on the defendant, for the crime of drug trafficking that was arbitrarily attributed to him. He requests that the ground be declared with merit and a rehearing be ordered for new reasoning of the penalty. Furthermore, he requests that the freedom of his client be ordered, because the pretrial detention was ordered with the trial judgment. **By majority, the ground is declared with merit.** The technical defense questions the penalty established for the crime of drug trafficking, considering that the imposition of the maximum extreme of the sanction provided in Article 58 of Law No. 8204 is not duly justified. After analyzing the trial court's ruling, this Chamber considers that it is correct. The reasoning of the sanction is, without a doubt, one of the neuralgic points in the drafting of a judgment, as it is the moment in which the State's power of command is made effective, through the reduction of the sphere of rights and freedoms of the person declared guilty of a crime. At this stage of the formation of a judgment, the exercise of weighing transcends the mere appreciation of the seriousness or harm to the protected legal interest caused by the conduct, and delves into the conditions of the person that may have influenced the commission of the crime, their motivation to commit a crime, the circumstances in which the act was perpetrated, among other useful aspects to individualize the degree of reproach that can be made for the illicit act committed. Because for each criminal offense maximum and minimum extremes are provided, which sometimes generate a wide margin of discretion, it is necessary for the justice administrator to exercise self-restraint, so as not to incur in excesses to which one is susceptible in an operation like this. For this reason, Article 71 of the Penal Code provides a list of factors that must necessarily be considered, including circumstances that may be favorable to the accused person. The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution No. 2012-244, of 10:38 a.m. on February 17, 2012, which this Chamber shares, stated the following: *«The reasoning of the penalty must indeed be composed of the analysis of the subjective and objective conditions of the facts, the intensity and magnitude of their implications, as well as by the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. In relation to the latter, it has been the criterion of this Chamber their importance, particularly at the time of determining in the judgment the amount of the penalty to be imposed; in this sense, in ruling 0314-2010 of 8:55 a.m. on April 30, 2010, issued by this Chamber, the jurisprudential criterion was reiterated, according to which: “The setting of the criminal sanction not only requires dwelling on the analysis of the aspects contained in the referred Article 71 but also, resorting to parameters of proportionality and reasonableness in order to provide a valid content to the imposition of the penalty, because that moment happens to be precisely the culminating point within the jurisdictional task in our criminal system, the moment in which the exercise of the ius puniendi is individualized and concretized. It is a constitutionally protected right that the accused clearly knows the reasons why the State decides to apply a custodial sentence to them, as well as the reasons why the quantum set for the application of said sanction is reasonable and proportional to the degree of reproach.”* [...] *In this operation, the purposes of the sanction defined by the legislator gain relevance, which must be considered for the development of the individualization of the penalty that is also a guarantee that stems, unavoidably, from respect for the principle of legality, in such a way that when setting it, the one that the legislator has defined for the conduct in question cannot be ignored, because in the current state of our system the judge cannot detach themselves from the legislative data, nor can they select or vary the sanction according to their best criterion, so that the dimension of the judgment of reproach, anticipated by the legislator in the minimum and maximum extremes of the established penalty, must be carried out within those margins and adhering to the guidelines of Article 71 of the Penal Code. Normative culpability obliges the judge to appreciate the circumstances surrounding the agent at the time of the act, to establish whether the legal system could—under the specific circumstances—require with greater or lesser severity an action adjusted to law, and thus the more exigible, the more reprehensible, and conversely, the less exigible, the less reprehensible. Culpability is nothing but the reproach for acting with a clear awareness of the unlawfulness of the act being performed, together with the failure to comply with the law and with society—without insurmountable physical risk and without insurmountable psychological pressure—in suitable circumstances to act correctly. It is a choice made consciously, where the subject opts for the violation of the norm despite having been able to act in accordance with the law. Now, just as it was said that greater exigibility leads to greater severity of the reproach, so greater reprehensibility leads to a greater penalty. The individualization of the penalty—to adapt the sanction to the level of reproach that corresponds to the responsible individual—implies making an effort of concreteness and analysis of that person's characteristics, which help to impose the just and proportional penalty to their culpability. Once the scope of the principle of culpability as a basis for imposing a penalty has been delimited, it is evident from the judgment of the case sub judice, specifically from considering...* [The sentence appears interrupted in the original text, continuing after the list marker without completion of the \"considerando\" reference.]\n\n...V of the judgment, that a detailed analysis of the elements inherent to the judgment of reprehensibility was carried out, always within the regulation established in Article 71 of the Penal Code, regarding the conduct attributed to the accused.» In the case before us, this Chamber observes that, indeed, [Nombre 001] was imposed the maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment provided for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, in accordance with Articles 58 and 77 of Law No. 8204. The reasoning set forth on this point consists of the following: «For [Nombre 001] the amount of TWENTY YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT; a sanction that responds, in the case of [Nombre 001], to a series of excesses in their maximum dimension in the realization of the objective elements of the criminal offense, for being the leader of the criminal enterprise, being the one who directed the distribution of drugs, as well as the control over the points of sale, specifically in the locality of León XIII. He issued orders using very young collaborators, which shows a total disregard for the stage of a person's youth, entirely blocking any possibility of personal betterment for the young people he recruited into his criminal organization, to the point of recruiting two siblings and their mother in the case of [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022] and [Nombre 015]. Another reprehensible aspect is the number of members of the criminal organization led by [Nombre 001], being at least 13 people, and the operating time span of at least 30 months, which results in a totally excessive manner and form of committing the crime. The imposing way in which [Nombre 001] issued his orders is exceedingly reprehensible, as for example when in multiple intercepted calls he intervened by telephone in a loud tone and even went so far as to shout at his collaborators, who received insults, offenses, and not to mention in the case of \"alias\" who was humiliated on repeated occasions. Another aspect in which excesses were committed to the maximum was in the operation modality of the organization, meaning that the drug acquisition power of the criminal structure was so great that it sold drugs to other criminal structures, as in the case of the organization led by [Nombre 099] alias \"[Nombre 109]\" and those evidenced in the different materializations, a reflection of which is the exorbitant profit that was obtained and for which it was necessary to conceal its illicit origin. Another of the circumstances that is extremely reprehensible is having used his own home, a place where he grew up since his childhood and obtained through his mother, as the operations center for his criminal organization.\n\nOn the other hand, during the development of the investigation, in calls that were intercepted by the jurisdictional authority, he showed a total disrespect for the figure of the judge, since he suspected that his calls could be being listened to, he uttered insults toward the figure of the judge as well as toward the figure of the police, specifically the judicial investigators, likewise in calls that were intercepted. Regarding the investigation period, it was proven that the common-law partner of Mr. [Nombre 001] was serving a prison sentence at the El Buen Pastor correctional center, the reason for the constant visits to said correctional center made by Mr. [Nombre 001]; this is of utmost interest regarding the reproach of the sanction, this because, as declared by the accused himself, he was left in charge of his children when his partner was imprisoned, however such circumstance in no way motivated him to refrain from having conflict with the legal system, even more so knowing that the crime for which his partner was serving a prison sentence was a crime of violation of the Psychotropic Substances Law, thus, far from showing respect for the conducts prohibited by law, he always kept the operation of his criminal organization running, which during the period his partner was in detention showed accelerated growth and expansion in the matter of drug trafficking. As for the personal conditions of the accused, although he is a relatively young person at 39 years of age and with a family, his family nor his age were a restraint from forming a criminal structure of the already known dimensions. On the other hand, the fact that he has no criminal record according to the criminal record certification is not a circumstance that takes precedence over the magnitude of the excesses in which he committed the crime. We see then that it is a crime whose abstract penalty is 8 to 20 years of prison, all and each of the analyzed excesses definitively must be reproached at the time of the penalty determination (dosificación de la pena), being maximum excesses, it is considered that the penalty proportional to the aforementioned reproach should be set at the amount of 20 years of prison» [sic] (cfr. fs. 980 to 982 of the judgment). As has already been indicated in this pronouncement, the greater the imposed penalty, the greater the rigor required of the justice administrator in the presentation of the reasons that justify it. In this case, it is observed that practically the entirety of the reasoning set forth by the trial court focused on the objective aspects of the punishable act, as allusions were made that the illicit act was committed by a criminal organization in which [Nombre 001] held the role of leader, which allowed him the recruitment of a significant number of people for these effects. But little or nothing is said about the other requirements provided in Article 71 of the Criminal Code, according to which the setting of the sanction must address the following parameters: «The court, in a reasoned judgment, shall determine the duration of the penalty to be imposed in accordance with the limits indicated for each crime, considering the seriousness of the fact and the personality of the principal or participant. To assess them, the following shall be taken into account: a) The subjective and objective aspects of the punishable act. b) The importance of the harm or danger. c) The circumstances of mode, time, and place. d) The quality of the determining motives. e) The other personal conditions of the active subject or of the victim to the extent that they have influenced the commission of the crime. f) The conduct of the agent subsequent to the crime. g) That the sentenced person is a woman who is in a state of vulnerability, due to poverty, due to having under her responsibility the care and maintenance of dependent family members, due to disability, or due to being a victim of gender-based violence, when that state has influenced the commission of the punishable act […]». The foregoing is relevant because, in accordance with Article 77, subsection f) of Law N.° 8204, the execution of the crime through an organized structure of three or more persons constitutes an aggravating circumstance, which implies that this circumstance in itself constitutes an objective element of the criminal type. The realization of the typical conduct, and in this case the verification of an aggravating circumstance, is an unavoidable requirement for setting the sanction, but by itself does not constitute a full justification for imposing the maximum extremity provided for it. It is necessary to analyze the link between the accused person and the illicit act in order to specify the criminal reproach that can be made, which in this case was limited regarding the analysis of proportionality and the purpose assigned to the penalty at the regulatory level. While it is true it is understandable and expected that a greater reproach be made to the person who leads a criminal organization, it is also true that the penalty serves a resocializing purpose, which is what should serve as a guide to the justice administrator when establishing the sanction. The analysis of necessity, suitability, and proportionality that should have been carried out so that the accused could understand why, in his case, a lower amount from the wide margin provided for the criminal type, ranging from 8 to 20 years of prison, was not adequate to fulfill that purpose, is completely lacking. Note that even the personal circumstances of the accused, which could have been favorable to him, are barely mentioned, but were not really weighed in the determination of the sanction. It must be remembered that, according to Article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, routine phrases are insufficient to meet the standard of an adequate statement of reasons (fundamentación), so the simple reference that «he is a relatively young person at 39 years of age and with a family, his family nor his age was a restraint from forming a criminal structure of the already known dimensions», constitutes a totally generic reference, which really does not explain why those circumstances are not conducive for the accused to return to his social and family environment in a shorter period. Despite the above, it is important to clarify that, by declaring the defect on its merits for deficiencies in the reasoning of the quantum of the penalty, this Chamber in no way endorses what was said by the defense, in the sense that the setting of the sanction was based on hatred toward its client. Such an affirmation, besides being extremely serious, because it suggests the commission of an illicit act by the trial judges, is totally unfounded, as the records of the debate and the reading of the judgment do not evidence any animosity or prejudice against the defendant that would have led the trial court to act outside the margins of the law and set the maximum sanction with the eagerness to harm him. The imposition of the maximum prison sentence was within the possibilities possessed by the a quo. What this Chamber observes and so declares, is that the justification presented for these effects was limited, even though greater rigor in the analysis was required, given that the maximum extremity of the penalty provided at the objective level was chosen. By virtue of the foregoing, upon verifying deficiencies in the statement of reasons for the sanction imposed on [Nombre 001] for the crime of international drug trafficking, by majority the ground is declared on its merits; consequently, the penalty imposed for said crime is annulled and a retrial is ordered for a new substanciation of that extremity by the original jurisdiction body, which must be composed of a different integration. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With accentuated respect, I separate from the decision of the majority of this ad quem chamber, and for the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I declare the sixth ground of the appeal by the private defense in favor of the accused [Nombre 001] without merit. After reviewing the seventh recital of the judgment (starting from folio 980), specifically with respect to the reasoning of the penalty imposed on [Nombre 001], for the commission of an aggravated drug trafficking crime, I consider that the decision of the a quo has been in accordance with the legal duty of statement of reasons (fundamentación); furthermore, that it conforms to the parameters of Article 71 of the Criminal Code, and that it involved an objective and reasonable graduation of the degree of culpability, which, as leader of the criminal organization in question, is inherent to the criminal conducts for which [Nombre 001] was convicted. The trial court did well, from my point of view, to contextualize the leadership of [Nombre 001], as a differentiating element of his criminal conduct, compared to that which can be associated with prison sentences lower than the maximum provided by law. The ruling not only reproaches this crime in the cited seventh recital, but also does so throughout the jurisdictional document; therefore, by virtue of the unitary character of the judgment, it is possible to understand the set of reasons weighed by the judging panel to decide upon the penalty of twenty years of prison for [Nombre 001]. Thus, the judgment stressed on a great number of occasions the rigid hierarchical structure that this criminal network had, proving that [Nombre 001] recruited and organized the members of the framework, assigned them specific roles and functions, managing to demonstrate that, in the intercepted communications, the members made reference to his leadership not only for the purposes of making important decisions, but also this being reflected in the custody and protection duties that the organization provided to [Nombre 001]. This is very relevant since, reasonably, the degree of culpability inherent to [Nombre 001] must be reflected in the amount of the penalty, taking into consideration his special position at the apex of the pyramidal figure of the network, as well as the particular characteristics of the organization as such, those of its members, and the specific way of committing crimes. In view of this, I am of the opinion that, in the seventh recital, the judgment did provide content to the reproach against [Nombre 001], and did so in accordance with the duty of reasoning that emanates from Articles 142 and 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as Article 71 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, when reasoning the penalty, the court characterized the criminal organization headed by [Nombre 001], highlighting that it involved a group of people dedicated to the sale of drugs to consumers, also its size and the transcendence of its activities which were clearly very considerable, as it even supplied drugs to other drug trafficking networks.\n\nIn that vein, [Name 001] was reproached for having managed to organize a large number of people – thirteen – and for keeping a drug trafficking network active and growing for more than two years – thirty months in total. Without a doubt, from my point of view, these first elements determine a sensible departure from the lower end of the prison sentence, because the trial court’s reasoning is intimately linked to a greater danger to public health. Indeed, the legal interest is at a higher risk when a person creates and leads a criminal network that not only engages in selling drugs through some points of sale, but also supplies kilograms of cocaine to other drug-trafficking groups. Furthermore, a network composed of a few members, four or six for example, is not the same as a structure where more than ten people actively participate, and which is a criminal group that not only remains active for more than two years, but which, as the trial court also considered, showed great evolution and development as time went on. Precisely regarding the members of the network, the adjudicating body reproaches [Name 001] for having recruited young people from a marginal urban community – Leon XIII neighborhood, Tibás, San José – rightly interpreting that this reveals his lack of concern for the youth of that locality, which clearly translates into an obstacle to any possibility of advancement for these people, since based on the characteristics of the majority of the network’s members, the a quo inferred that [Name 001] enlisted people of young age, low educational attainment, and with very scarce economic resources, highlighting that even three of the members belong to the same family – the mother and her two children. Up to this point, it is possible to determine, in my view, that the high degree of reproach made by the court was not arbitrary or subjective, but was based on the analysis of [Name 001]'s position in the organization, its basic characteristics – size, duration over time, and scale of its illicit business – and those of the members he recruited, all of which is in accordance with the parameters of Article 71 of the Penal Code. More abundantly, in the line of weighing the circumstances of the manner in which [Name 001] led the drug-trafficking organization, the judgment revisited and reproached the imposing way in which he controlled his business. Thus, the ruling indicates that in some calls [Name 001] was heard off-telephone, when he intervened with a loud tone of voice, and on other occasions he was heard resorting to shouting, insults, offenses, and humiliations, which the trial court correctly interpreted as a clearly violent method to maintain control of the business as well as the members of the network, to keep them in line according to the functions they had to fulfill in the machinery of the criminal enterprise. Finally, the jurisdictional document adds regarding the high degree of reproach toward [Name 001], as the leader of the criminal group, establishing that he obtained very high profits from drug trafficking, that he used his own house to erect the center of the organization’s operations, and that even when he was left in charge of his children, because his partner was confined in a penal center, he continued his illicit activity and made it grow considerably. With these arguments, the a quo not only showed that family and home roots were no deterrent for [Name 001], but that his link to the criminal network, its development, and the enjoyment of the high profits he obtained, presented him as a person openly confronted with the juridical order, to the point that the ruling also mentions that during the telephone intervention, [Name 001] was heard vilifying the figure of jurisdictional and police authority, considering it possible that his communications were intercepted by the Judicial Branch. Clearly, the sum of all these arguments constitutes, from my point of view, an objective reasoning in accordance with the parameters of Article 71 of the Penal Code, also highlighting that the court mentioned that [Name 001]'s age, his family nucleus, and the absence of previous prosecutions do not weaken the high degree of culpability arising from the proven facts. Therefore, I consider that the maximum sentence imposed on [Name 001] by the criminal court was just, proportional, and is directly motivated in light of the high reproach developed by the judgment. Therefore, my vote is to declare without merit the sixth ground of the appeal, filed by the private defense of the cited defendant.-\n\n**XXVIII. First ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Luis Cubillo Pacheco, on behalf of [Name 001].** He alleges \"*Illegitimate reasoning, contrary to law, violating the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment*\". He maintains that the judgment held it as proven that the accused committed the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales). He affirms that the trial court departed from the factual framework (marco fáctico) contained in the accusation, which violated the defendant's right of defense, despite the fact that the technical defense refuted the charges brought. He reviews the content of the accusation with the purpose of demonstrating that none of the verbs used describe conduct attributable to [Name 001], nor were they accredited at trial. He transcribes fact 5.1 of the accusation and questions that the Public Prosecutor's Office failed to demonstrate in what way, or through what negotiations, the accused would have invested money in the indicated property, so that —in his view— it was not possible to hold that point as proven. He assures that the court introduced inaccurate facts in the judgment, by affirming that the property is registered across several lots, when in reality it is a single one. He specifies that the other mentioned lots —numbers [Value 140], [Value 016], [Value 141], and [Value 142]— are not the property of the defendant, but of persons unrelated to the process, who were never called to testify, nor investigated for their possible link to the accused. He reiterates that fact 5.1 could not be considered proven, nor attributed to his client. He emphasizes that the court limited itself to basing its decision on the presence of people who frequented the property, without greater evidentiary support. He sets forth fact 5.4 and points out that, at the closing arguments stage (etapa de conclusiones), it was objected that the Public Prosecutor's Office failed to establish, or prove, how, by what means, at what time, or place the accused would have appointed a third party to carry out acts of acquisition of assets. He assures that there is no evidentiary element that permits affirming that [Name 001] delegated or entrusted another person with actions related to that fact. He records fact 5.8 and maintains that, although it was not proven, it was held as proven without an intellective analysis being made or the reasons that supported such a conclusion being set forth. He stresses that it is not true that [Name 246], in her capacity as representative of Vanguard Cleaning RC S.A., was subject to a criminal case for this fact; she was never charged, has no open proceeding, and has not been convicted. He assures that there is no evidence whatsoever linking his client to the acquisition of the property mentioned in that section of the accusation, which stood in the way of reaching a state of certainty. He points out that [Name 225] testified at trial, an investigator from the Money Laundering Section (Sección de Legitimación de Capitales), who stated that he could not determine transfers, or payments to third parties, for the purchase of movable property or real property, so he questions whether the court adequately assessed that testimony. He transcribes fact 5.9 and affirms that the same objections formulated regarding fact 5.8 are applicable to it. He alleges that the judgment contains false statements, since it is not true that [Name 236] was subject to a criminal case for that fact. He reiterates that there is no evidence that links the accused to the acquisition of the asset, so it was not possible to hold the fact as proven. He again cites the testimony of [Name 225], who indicated that no transfer or payment to third parties could be established, an aspect that —he affirms— was ignored by the court. He relates fact 5.10 and maintains that it could not be accredited for the same reasons previously set forth. He underscores that it is not true that [Name 236] was subject to a criminal case for that fact, nor was any link demonstrated to his client, for which reason he considers that the court incurred errors, both in the assessment of the evidence and in the reasoning. He asserts that none of the facts related to the crime of money laundering were duly proven, nor were the circumstances of time, manner, and place established. He affirms that the court departed from the factual framework of the accusation and limited itself to developing an extensive exposition on the personal relationships among various defendants, to justify a conviction for facts not charged. As for the grievance, he points out that his client was declared the responsible perpetrator of the crime of money laundering, despite the principles of correlation between accusation and judgment, due process, presumption of innocence, and right of defense having been violated. He requests the nullity of the judgment and that an acquittal be issued in favor of his client. **Second ground of appeal managed by private defense attorney Luis Cubillo Pacheco, on behalf of [Name 001].** He alleges \"*Improper assessment of the evidence presented, lack of intellective reasoning, violating the rules of logic and sound rational criticism (sana crítica racional) regarding the reasoning itself*\". He considers that the conviction imposed on his client lacks support from the perspective of logic and sound criticism, as well as in light of the evidence rendered at trial, part of which was not even mentioned in the judgment. He recalls that during the debate, the testimony of Elizabeth Segura González was received, in her capacity as an expert witness, author of report 10-SLC-R-22-CPA-15-21. He indicates that the expert was specifically questioned about [Name 001], but the content of that questioning was not gathered by the court, nor were her responses analyzed in the ruling. He transcribes fragments of the expert's declaration and highlights that, when asked if his client was an object of interest in the investigation, she answered negatively. He underscores that, according to the summary made by the court, the expert referred to other defendants, but not to [Name 001], who —he affirms— was never considered relevant in the investigative process. He reproduces other passages of the testimony, from which he concludes that his defendant's participation is excluded. Regarding the witness [Name 225], an official of the Money Laundering Section, he highlights that he stated the impossibility of identifying transfers or payments made by the accused to other defendants for the acquisition of assets. He assures that this same line was upheld by the other witnesses in the process, who coincided that it was not possible to establish the use of third parties for the purchase of assets, not even those located at the accused's domicile during the raids. He specifies that none of the registered owners were interviewed or charged, so —in his view— it was not possible to prove the configuration of the criminal type. He maintains that these elements were not considered or mentioned in the judgment, which he describes as an insurmountable defect. He affirms that the evidence did not permit proving any of the conduct attributed to his client; on the contrary, the testimonies were clear in excluding his participation. However, the court omitted to carry out an intellective analysis of the evidence, did not examine what was declared by the witnesses, nor explained why it dismissed such statements. He assures that the judgment lacks a reasoned exposition that justifies the conviction for the crime of money laundering, since it contains no analysis, assessment, or discarding, of the evidentiary elements presented at trial.\n\n[He] argues that the judgment lacks the essential requirements established in procedural regulations, failing to adequately explain the reasons why a certain value was assigned to the evidence, relying on a \"referential framework (marco referencial)\" to support the conviction. As a grievance, he points out that a custodial sentence was imposed on his client when a correct assessment of the evidence should have led to a state of reasonable doubt. He consequently requests the annulment of the judgment and that an acquittal be issued in favor of [Name 001].\n\nFor the reasons that will be stated, the ground is rejected. Because they are closely related, the two grounds of the appeal are heard and decided jointly. As a result of the comprehensive review of the judgment, based on the complaints raised by the defense, this Chamber concludes that the acts attributed to [Name 001], constituting the offense of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), were duly accredited, with the exception that will be discussed later regarding fact 5.14. From the section of proven facts, specifically point 5, it is clear that [Name 001] was attributed the following:\n\n\"5. During the investigation period from April 2018 to October 2020, the Criminal Organization formed by the investigated parties [Name 001], [Name 030], [Name 161] (absent), [Name 029], [Name 026], [Name 013], [Name 022], [Name 015], [Name 007], [Name 046] (deceased), [Name 050] (absent), [Name 016], [Name 019], [Name 033], as a result of the substantial illicit profits produced from the serious activity of drug trafficking and sale, carried out actions to acquire, convert, transfer property of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement and rights over different properties or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the domestic drug trafficking activity executed and led by the accused [Name 001]. 5.1 In the period from 2018 until October 13, 2020, the accused [Name 001], as a result of the significant amounts of money generated from drug trafficking, invested the money generated from this illicit activity in the property built and used as a dwelling by the same accused [Name 001], in [...], on properties number [Value 014], [Value 015], [Value 209], [Value 017] and [Value 018], which are registered in the name of third parties, a dwelling that maintains an economic value of ¢535,886,905.72 (five hundred thirty-five million eight hundred eighty-six thousand nine hundred five colones and seventy-two cents). A dwelling that was found to be in use and enjoyment by the accused during the indicated period [...] 5.4 In the period from January 2018 until October 13, 2020, the accused [Name 001] designated the accused [Name 030] alias \"[Name 241]\" to carry out the necessary actions for the acquisition of high economic value property, using money derived from the illicit drug trade, and also delegated to [Name 030] the recruitment of third parties to facilitate their names and identities to register vehicles and property in their names, thus concealing the illicit origin, property that was intended for the use and enjoyment of the accused [Name 001] and other members of the criminal group [...] 5.6 As part of the functions entrusted by the hierarchy of the criminal group for the concealment of property acquired by the criminal group, the accused [Name 030] performed the necessary steps for the purchase and registry inscription of the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style vehicle, license plate [Value 031], in the name of the accused ([Name 019]), who acquired this property at the Purdy Motor S.A. agency for the sum of ¢44,272,000.00 (forty-four million two hundred seventy-two thousand colones), a vehicle that was designated by the criminal group for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the leader of the criminal group, [Name 001] [...] 5.8 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value property, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado style vehicle, worth ¢13,240,000.00 (thirteen million two hundred forty thousand colones), which was registered, for the purpose of concealing its illicit origin from drug trafficking, in the name of the corporation Vanguard Cleaning RC S.A., represented by [Name 246] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process. 5.9 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value property, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the Mitsubishi Sportero style vehicle, license plate [Value 167], with armored-type security devices, worth ¢23,462,250.00 (twenty-three million four hundred sixty-two thousand two hundred fifty colones), which was registered, for the purpose of concealing its illicit origin from drug trafficking, in the name of [Name 236] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process. 5.10 As part of the operational model developed by the criminal group for the acquisition of high economic value property and concealment to divert its illicit origin, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001] acquired the Yamaha motorcycle, WR450F model, license plate [Value 168], which was registered, for the purpose of concealing its illicit origin from drug trafficking, in the name of [Name 236] (who is being prosecuted separately for these acts), a vehicle that was found to be designated for the use and enjoyment of [Name 001] during the investigation process [...] 5.14 During the period from January 2018 to October 2020, the accused and leader of the criminal group [Name 001], for the purpose of inserting, diversifying and stratifying the money derived from drug trafficking, delegated to the accused ([Name 046]) (deceased) the function of straw owner (testaferro) in order to conceal, at the registry level, the illicit origin of movable property, among them the Toyota Land Cruiser Prado T style vehicle, 2014 model, beige color, with license plate [Value 035], which was acquired for an amount of ¢24,710,000.00 in April 2019, a vehicle that was designated for the use of the members of the criminal group and the material execution of illicit activities\" [sic] (cf. fs. 297 to 301).\n\nThe intellectual rationale set out by the lower court (a quo) for accepting those facts as proven is found, for the most part, in the section titled \"Intellectual Rationale on Money Laundering (Fundamentación intelectiva sobre legitimación de capitales)\" (cf. fs. 791 to 835 of the judgment). What concerns facts 5.4 and 5.6 is drawn from the sections identified as \"Regarding [Name 030] and the drug trafficking acts\" (cf. fs. 724 to 768 of the judgment) and \"Facts related to [Name 030] and [Name 019]\" (cf. fs. 834 to 860 of the judgment). After the meticulous examination carried out by this Chamber, it is considered that the intellectual analysis expressed by the trial court is adequate and sufficient to sustain the criminal liability of [Name 001] for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales).\n\nThe judgment begins its exposition on the matter with the following reasoning: \"The starting point that the court has assessed is the financial profile analyzed and set forth in the reports of the Capital Legitimization Section, numbers 25-SLC-CI-20 of the month of August of the year 2020, from folio 1789 to 2020, the addenda I, II, and III to that same report, 31-SLC-CI-19 from the same section at folios 2823 to 2851, report 87-SLC-2022 at folios 3377 to 3779, and 10-SLC-R-2-CPA-15-21 at folios 3733 to 3758 and their addenda; in which the financial analyses are provided that link [Name 001], the rest of the accused, and the determination of the growth of assets (crecimiento patrimonial) and the acquisition of movable and immovable property; given that according to these expert reports, the value of the criminal organization's assets amounts to 870 million colones (see folio 3754), which has been justified through the traceability of the monetary operations and the findings from the communications of the telephone interception in which the collection of large sums of money was established, both from drug trafficking, such as when \"the babies or babys\" were mentioned, which was nothing other than the amounts for the payment of kilos or half-kilos of drugs; therefore, the Court had at its disposal a large number of compelling clues and evidence, which allowed it to establish that [Name 001] and his subordinates maintained an economic level or profile that was above what their activities evidenced. Proof of this was that during various stationary surveillances and follow-ups of the members of the criminal organization, over a two-year period, it was not possible to see that any of the accused persons carried out any lawful activity that had the formal or informal solidity to establish that, as a result of it, profitable and sufficient economic gains were obtained to be able to buy various high-value homes or vehicles. This was a common denominator in each and every one of the accused, who, as a product of obtaining the criminal organization's money, even recruited third parties who provided their names to register property in their name and thus conceal the illicit origin of the resources, whose purpose was the use and enjoyment thereof, including by [Name 001].\" [sic] (cf. fs. 794 to 795 of the judgment).\n\nAs noted in previous sections of this pronouncement, there was sufficient evidence to link the members of the investigated criminal organization, among them [Name 001], to drug trafficking activities, mainly at a medium scale. The objective of an activity of this nature is obtaining profits for their subsequent enjoyment, which requires an entire logistics to achieve it, since at the financial system level there are various controls that aim to detect, control, and prevent the entry of illicit capital, such as, for example, Cash Transaction Reports (Reportes de Operaciones en Efectivo, ROE) and Suspicious Transaction Reports (Reportes de Operación Sospechosa, ROS). Precisely to evade those controls and to be able to use the money, in large criminal structures, like the one prosecuted in this case, a series of mechanisms are developed so that the assets cannot be linked to their legitimate owners, and in this way any connection to the criminal activity from which they come is diluted. One of them is that employed by the accused in the present case, which corresponds to the acquisition of high-value assets through third parties who act as frontmen (testaferros), who only appear at the registry level, while the true owners are third-party members of the organization. In this context, the economic profile of the accused constitutes an important source of information, hence the importance that the court of origin (a quo) gave to these inputs, since the field investigation carried out by the judicial police and the expert analysis executed by the specialists of the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial) allowed determining that, despite the fact that the majority of the investigated persons had no lawful economic activities—which was corroborated in more than two years of investigation against them—they held assets amounting to several hundreds of millions of colones, which is not a minor detail, but rather a true reflection of the profits they obtained as a product of drug trafficking. The only ones who reported economic activities were [Name 030]—which was analyzed when hearing the appeals filed in his favor—and [Name 001]. Regarding the latter, despite having registrations with State institutions, these reflect limited economic movements that in no way justify his increase in assets. The defense theory, regarding the financial profile of [Name 001], revolved around his economic income coming from informal money lending. However, the court of origin validly concluded that, even though there was indicative evidence that the accused carried out this activity in parallel, in reality it consisted of an additional way to place the illicit capital, to hide its trail. Consequently, it was completely ruled out that said informal activity was the exclusive source of [Name 001]'s income: \"Thus, the court has given analysis to the financial profile presented by [Name 001], which is based on the reports and statements of the investigators and experts who declared at the trial, but despite the fact that the accused [Name 001] came to indicate in his statement that his economic resources came from the placement of money in informal loans, known as 'loan sharking' (gota a gota), the truth is that, as has been demonstrated in the respective analysis regarding the drug trafficking actions, this activity is a form of diversifying or layering the profits obtained as a consequence of drug trafficking, and they have presented as a common denominator that for the loans the same subordinates (accused) of the drug trafficking were used, developing a parallel activity; but the court categorically rules out that his income is solely from the loans, which it is worth saying were developed illegally, outside of financial intermediation, and although in his right to a material defense the indictee [Name 001] wanted to explain it that way in the trial, the truth is that that dynamic announced by him is, for the court, only a defensive strategy to justify and evade that his main activity was drug trafficking, coupled with the fact that, as established in Report No. 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21, the accused [Name 001] during the investigation period did not register economic activities or tax obligations; however, an update of the tax status was carried out by the judicial expert Rodrigo Chaves Calvo and the auditor Rodrigo Monge Mora, it was established through the Virtual Tax Administration System (ATV) of the Ministry of Finance, that on February 20, 2021, that is, while serving 'Pretrial Detention', [Name 001] was registered before the Ministry of Finance under the economic activity of 'LOAN SERVICE (PRESTAMITAS)', which definitively coincides with that strategy and furthermore is a sign that what is intended is to give the impression that his income comes from that informal and illegal activity; but beyond the fact that the court considers that this increase is based on the drug trafficking activities and it has been so proven, it was never accredited by the defense of [Name 001], through evidence admitted to the trial, that this excessive increase in assets was solely the product of informal loans, and much less that an informal activity generates exorbitant profits like those referred to by [Name 001], when he said they oscillated around an amount of fourteen million per week just in interest, and that his base was the sale of a property in the year 2015. And although the court corroborated that the accused had indeed obtained a property in the year 2010 that he subsequently sold on October 15, 2015, for the sum of SIX MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES (₡6,400,000.00), the truth is that he could not provide specific or approximate data, all of which contradicts the logic of universal rules and denotes an eagerness to justify what was stated in the expert reports. It is worth saying that it was determined that [Name 001] did not dedicate himself to lawful activities, so how could he sustain a financial 'business' of that magnitude, which makes it rather contrary to the investigation findings that allowed establishing that he dedicated himself to criminal activities.\" [sic] (Supplied emphasis. Cf. fs. 795 to 796 of the judgment). From the preceding passage it is noted that the trial court did analyze the defense theory, but dismissed it for lacking sufficient evidentiary support and also for being openly inappropriate in light of the prosecution's evidence, which points to [Name 001] as a co-perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking, for which he received significant profits. In addition to the foregoing, the court of origin took into consideration the late attempt to leave some trace of the lending activity to third parties in formal information systems, because the only existing record in that sense is after the date of the defendant's arrest for this cause, which supports the prosecutorial theory in the sense that these simultaneously constituted a front and a way to legitimize the large sums of money obtained from the illicit drug trade. In addition to the foregoing, various sources of information were considered to rule out that the accused had records of lawful activities that justified his income: \"if we look at report 25-SLC-CI-20 C INV 63-19, it is stated that he has no information in the Costa Rican Social Security Agency (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social) regarding work activities, has no registrations as an employer, does not present, nor has he ever presented, records of economic activities or tax obligations, does not hold movable property in his name, since according to digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 210] he does not register assets of this type. Establishing through digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 211], the analyzed history only had one motorcycle with license plate [Value 080]. Regarding immovable property, according to digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 212] he does not possess assets of this type, has no connection to companies according to digital certification RNPDIGITAL-[Value 213], and regarding financial products in banks, in Report No. 10-SLC-R-22 CPA 15-21, it was indicated that he had at the Bank of Costa Rica (BCR), the Savings Account in Colones No. [Value 039], which is blocked, with a balance of FORTY-FOUR COLONES AND 20/100 (₡44.20), registered with an opening date of February 1, 2005, and a last movement date of July 15, 2020. It is of interest that during the year 2018 in this savings account 59 movements were made, related mainly to 05 'Deposits', 12 records of 'Interest Earned', 01 'ATM Deposit', and 39 'Purchases in Commerce', for the total sum of income of TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED NINETY-THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINE COLONES AND 55/100 (₡2,393,709.55), as well as a total of expenses for an amount of THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND FIFTY-THREE COLONES AND 42/100 (₡3,623,709.55). The difference in favor of the debits is due to the balance that the account carries from periods prior to the study. The already referenced experts highlight that the registered income comes from [Name 001] himself and from three other individuals by the names of ([Name 013]), [Name 022], and [Name 354]. Likewise, the expenses were mainly originated by purchases in businesses associated with the sale of personal articles from high-value brands, hardware stores, and supermarkets. Hence, it contradicts the rules of logic that if [Name 001] indicated that his income averaged around 14 million per week just in interest, he did not maintain those amounts of money in this or other accounts, and the court asks, if the accused did not have accounts in national or foreign banks, where was that money kept? How was it safeguarded?\n\nand if those gains hovered around 14 million per week in interest, just to give an example, they would be 56 million colones per month, but they do not coincide with the data from the only bank where he reported income, which coupled with the fact that when opening that account he stated that he was an “Independent Merchant,” specifically in the “Sale of Household Products” and that the sole source or origin of the funds comes from his activity as an Independent Worker; which does not correspond with the findings of the investigation where no licit commercial activity was ever established, or any activity of a nature other than the detailed criminal actions, and furthermore, the court observes that the income recorded in the BCR account comes from two of the accused in this criminal structure, the brothers [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 022], who were precisely among his closest associates, and who gave custody to money and drugs in his home along with his mother, the accused [Nombre 015]; therefore, the court is definitively certain that the financial justification that [Nombre 001] tried to provide is not sustainable; consequently, after tracing the benefits of the drug trafficking activity, it can be clearly stated that the sole objective of [Nombre 001] was to hide and conceal the true origin of the assets and money, and that he had the accompaniment of the rest of the criminal organization that helped him evade the legal consequences of his acts” (cf. pages 797 to 798 of the judgment). From all the foregoing, this Chamber derives that the trial court did conduct a broad and meticulous study of the evidence, in order to determine that, in effect, [Nombre 001] did not have a licit source of income, or at least one that did not proceed from a crime, to justify the high-value assets he held; without verifying deficiencies in the evidentiary analysis or in the conclusions reached. Despite the fact that they are two independent crimes, drug trafficking and money laundering have an extremely clear connection, because the former is what precedes the latter and which explains the asset increase of the accused. The drug that was demonstrated to be trafficked by the organization on a medium scale, yielded income of approximately ₡5,100,000 for each kilogram of cocaine placed on the illicit market, a sum that is by no means negligible and that is indeed consistent with the assets held by [Nombre 001] together with his subordinates. It is important to highlight, prior to the analysis of each specific event attributed to the defendant, that this Chamber shares the thesis set forth by the a quo, regarding the fact that the perpetrator of the crime of drug trafficking may, in turn, be the perpetrator of the crime of money laundering, known in legal doctrine as “self-laundering.” In this regard, the judgment states: “the crime of Money Laundering is commonly related to the crime of possession, storage, and trafficking of drugs, but both crimes, although unavoidably related, as is the case here, by reason of the involvement of the same persons, both transcend different legal interests, and hence the criminal organization of [Nombre 001] diversified its actions or ‘modus operandi’; therefore, this position has been recognized in case law, as defined by the Criminal Cassation Chamber, when it went on to develop its considerations regarding ‘self-laundering’ and the placement or investment phase, also called ‘placement’ in doctrine, stating the following: ‘III. [...] In another order of ideas, it is also unavoidable to address the issue of self-laundering, as established in numeral 69 of the cited law. According to the wording of this article transcribed above, a double intent is required; that is, knowledge and acceptance that the assets to be laundered come from a serious crime (punishable with penalties that have a threshold of at least four years of imprisonment) and knowledge and willingness to carry out the actions provided for in subsections a) and b) of ordinal 69 of the aforementioned law, namely: ‘Article 69.- Anyone shall be sanctioned with a prison sentence of eight (8) to twenty (20) years: a) Whoever acquires, converts, or transfers assets of economic interest, knowing that they originate from a crime that, within its penalty range, can be sanctioned with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more, or performs any other act to hide or conceal the illicit origin, or to help the person who has participated in the infractions to evade the legal consequences of their acts. b) Whoever hides or conceals the true nature, origin, location, destination, movement, or rights over the assets or their ownership, knowing that they proceed, directly or indirectly, from a crime that within its penalty range can be sanctioned with a prison sentence of four (4) years or more. (...)” (the underlining is not part of the original). That knowledge and acceptance of the prior crime does not exclude that he acquired it by virtue of his own participation in the prior illicit act. Such a limitation, exception, or prohibition is not described in the referred ordinal and, for that reason, nothing prevents the perpetrator of the preceding crime from also being the perpetrator of the one that sanctions money laundering. They are distinct punitive conducts, different protected legal interests, just as the intent required in the prior criminality is also different from that in asset laundering. The latter, in turn, is a common crime that can be committed by any active subject without meeting special characteristics of authorship [...] In this order of ideas, it is the criterion of this Criminal Cassation Chamber that the criminal type precepted in Law number 8204 contains no exception or limitation that prevents punishing the crime of asset laundering by the perpetrator of the preceding crime, as it is a common crime that protects different legal interests, with illicit conducts not subsumable into each other, and where the law itself makes no reservation or exception.’ (...), Resolution No. 00716-2022, of 10:56 a.m. on June 29, 2022; hence, for the Court it has been absolutely clear that the accused [Nombre 001] built an economic platform through his link to drug trafficking (preceding crime), and as a consequence of his gains placed them in other activities linked to organized crime; therefore, the court is certain that [Nombre 001] and the other accused indeed performed the actions that money laundering requires” (the underlining is supplied). The thesis followed by the trial court, supported by the case law line established by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on the matter, in the opinion of this Chamber is correct. Despite the intimate relationship between both criminal types, the truth is that they protect different legal interests and do not have a relationship of speciality, consumption, or exclusion of one with respect to the other, so as to deem that the same person cannot incur both illicit acts. On the contrary, our legislator chose to independently devalue the exhaustion phase of the preceding crime, when different actions are carried out aimed at introducing into the formal economy the gains obtained as a product of committing a serious crime. This circumstance was not objected to by the defense; however, it is brought up because it constitutes an aspect of great relevance for understanding the judgment. Now, with regard to the verification of the illicit conducts, it is held that [Nombre 001] was attributed, as one of the ways of laundering the illicit capital, the construction of a home with money proceeding from drug trafficking, in San José, Tibás León XIII, Garabito, Alameda I, affecting properties number [Valor 014]—registered in the name of his mother—, [Valor 015], [Valor 016], [Valor 017], and [Valor 018]—registered in the name of third parties— . Regarding said building, the judgment details: “having analyzed the point and compared with the evidence reproduced in the proceedings, it was verified that as a product of the economic income from drug trafficking, during the preliminary investigation, those in charge of the investigation noticed the construction of a home in the Ciudadela León Trece, with the first identification of the property documented through police report number IP-359-EN-19, prepared on October 17, 2019, from page 753 of Volume II to page 1019 of Volume III, where a photograph was observed on page number 115 of said report, showing the aforementioned property in the construction process, and that it was absolutely clear was in the construction process; in this regard, investigator [Nombre 092] stated in the proceedings: ‘with the home in which [Nombre 001] reported was in [...], that home from the beginning of the case until the police conclusion we were able to document all the modifications it underwent and the permanence and use by [Nombre 001], the changes; initially the home was relatively small at a visual level, as the case developed they developed it with more floors and stories until reaching 5 stories, encompassing a higher space than initially could be documented, registry-wise I do not have the data on how many lots it encompassed, but visually it encompassed more lots than those we visualized at the beginning, not only through surveillance but through interceptions it was possible to document the permanence at the place of [Nombre 029], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 083], [Nombre 001], even non-telephonic but visual vehicles like that of alias [Nombre 275], subjects like [Nombre 030], vehicles and others in the area, alias [Nombre 109], with [Nombre 010] multiple communications’ (...), hence it was indeed verified the start of that construction, which occurred during the investigation period, so it could be clearly indicated that the accused [Nombre 001] invested the gains from drug trafficking in said home, located in [Nombre 352], which by its dimensions inevitably stood out for the size of the construction, with five stories, garages, decoration, paint, which was part of the external facade, since inside the high finishes and materials provided an excessive luxury as will be seen further on; without neglecting that said property comprised the use of several properties, located in [...], these being registrations [Valor 014], [Valor 014], [Valor 015], [Valor 016], [Valor 017], and [Valor 018], maps [Valor 019], [Valor 020], [Valor 021], [Valor 022], and [Valor 023]” [sic] (cf. pages 800 to 801 of the judgment).\n\nAs is evident from the foregoing passage, the evidence produced at trial, including the testimony of judicial investigator [Name 092], who directed the inquiries, together with the police reports, made it possible to determine the construction of the dwelling during the investigation period, meaning that the location of that structure did not constitute a random find, but rather that the judicial authorities witnessed its building. However, the link to [Name 001] and the criminal organization was established through several means: the first is that one of the lots on which it was built is registered in the name of his mother, [Name 003], but, moreover, it was a place of constant presence and visitation by the accused. In fact, the judgment states that, based on the evidence produced, it was established that the security arrangements developed around [Name 001] had that property as a point of convergence, because the accused would organize themselves when the defendant was about to appear at the site: \"*it is important to emphasize, as indicated by investigator [Name 092], that from the beginning of the investigation it was being reported that the criminal structure was based in that citadel and that its members frequented said dwelling, in addition to the fact that in the intercepted communications it was established that this was the nerve center for the criminal activity, not in vain did all the accused perform a function of guarding the property, with firearms, surveillance cameras, and also because in the surroundings of that alameda Uno, when the criminal leader was to enter or leave, a whole prior surveillance operation was carried out regarding the presence of police forces or specific points where they would go ahead on motorcycles, whether upon his arrival or departure, to verify said police presence and prevent [Name 001] from being intercepted by the Public Force or any other police body, a clear example that the organization had to carry out the protection of the leader [Name 001] arose on December 4, 2018, in the vicinity of the aforementioned house on alameda Uno León Trece, the administrative police Fuerza Pública had set up a police checkpoint, in which [Name 001] was detained, what is particular is that both [Name 001], his mother, [Name 029] alias \"[Name 083]\" and another of the accused [Name 161] alias \"[Name 083]\" (absent from the proceedings), who was [Name 001]'s right-hand man, expressed their disagreement with the prior surveillance from when [Name 001] left that dwelling under construction and the \"preventive\" work to avoid being detained by the police authorities*\" (cf. pp. 801 to 802 of the judgment). In addition to the foregoing, that is, observing the accused persons having contact with the property, the *a quo* court took into consideration information from telephone interceptions, in which the defendants referred to the construction of the dwelling and the conditioning that [Name 001] was giving to the place: \"*the profits obtained were indeed destined for the construction of this luxurious house and thus the accused ([Name 001]), with the help of his subordinates, has concealed the existence of the resources from drug trafficking, which have been invested in said construction and thereby ensured the appearance of legality; even another of the accused linked to the criminal organization boasted about this construction (which coincides with the forensic engineering analysis) and that it was used for the effective achievement of criminal actions, the following communication reflects this circumstance: From [Value 194]. Call identified with sequence number 0334036. The intercepted telephone right maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 195]. This call was made at 17:24 hours on July 4, 2019: “[Name 340], alias “[Name 210]” made a call to a female. The conversation yielded data of interest from minute 00:01:16 to minute 00:01:45. [Name 210] said – It’s that the “boss” is making, is making some rooms, it’s that he made a house for his mom. To which the female said – Mhm. [Name 210] said – right, then one house down below was left empty, then he did the two-story thing, upstairs he made rooms for us and downstairs he’s making a gym. The female answered – Is he making rooms for you guys? [Name 210] said – Yes and he’s making a gym and a study for tattooing. To which the female answered – Mhm. [Name 210] said – Can you imagine how crazy, the good thing is that I’m going to have a gym and I won’t have to pay. The conversation continues without generating data of interest. Communication ends*\" [sic] (cf. pp. 804 to 805 of the judgment). That information coincides with what the judicial police was observing and documenting in real time regarding the construction of the dwelling. As already indicated, another piece of evidence considered to link the property to [Name 001] was that one of the lots where construction was taking place belonged to the defendant's mother, which is confirmed in the following communication set out in the judgment: \"*the accused [Name 029] spoke with the mother of [Name 001], identified as “doña [Name 168]”, and indicated to her that in the house of interest located in the area of the [Name 353]”, [Name 001] would have assigned ([Name 013]) alias [Name 124] and [Name 007] alias “[Name 109]” to guard the structure, because they were doing work on it, but he also mentions that it was in “her house”, which makes sense since the five-story dwelling is grounded on estate number [Value 014], whose owner is [Name 003], mother of alias “[Name 084]”, which makes it clear that in said dwelling money, drugs, weapons were stored and vehicles and motorcycles acquired with the profits from drug trafficking were kept for the continuation of the criminal activity being carried out, which was not only in use and under construction, but was under the total control of the criminal structure, the following is the reflection of the communication that the court took into consideration: From [Value 077]. Call identified with sequence number 0026969. The intercepted telephone right maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Value 214]. This call was made at 20:47 hours on April 26, 2019.*\n\n[Nombre 083] spoke with [Nombre 168], At minute 00:00:22 [Nombre 083] said – well what happens is that he's not there, [Nombre 168] said – why?, [Nombre 083] said – I don't know, he left, [Nombre 168] said – when?, [Nombre 083] said – a little while ago, his son, [Nombre 168] said – isn't he out playing?, [Nombre 083] said – mmm I don't think so, [Nombre 168] said – and what did he say?, [Nombre 083] said – nothing, he just said that, well he left [Nombre 123] and [Nombre 109] there at the house, [Nombre 168] said – and why does he leave those people there?, [Nombre 083] said – because they're working there at the, at his house, well, where his house was before, they're doing I don't know what there and so that's why they are, they stayed there to watch over that, while he finished working because I don't know what time that guy leaves, since it's just one guy” (…); it is clear that said dwelling no longer belonged to the accused's mother and that in effect that property and the other properties on which it was built were so by reason of the use and ownership of [Nombre 001]” (cf. fs. 805 to 806 of the judgment). In the same vein, regarding the construction of the building and the arrangements being made by the defendants for those purposes, the trial court also assessed other evidentiary elements: “the indications made in the following two communications regarding the truth that the construction was taking place during the investigation period, if we see this, it is substantiated in the following communications: The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the unregistered telephone service user. This call was made at 01:23:00 p.m on July 26, 2019, [Nombre 013] alias “[Nombre 124]/[Nombre 124]” received a call from an Identified Subject as “[Nombre 343]”, from which the following can be extracted: [Nombre 004] said -hello, [Nombre 343] said -hello, [Nombre 004] said -hey [Nombre 343], hello, [Nombre 343] said -hello, [Nombre 004] said -hey [Nombre 343], [Nombre 343] said -hey it's my bro, [Nombre 004] said -pura vida, [Nombre 343] said where are you, [Nombre 004] said -man, I'm far away dude, [Nombre 343] said aaah, there's the “Patrón”, right, [Nombre 004] said -same, yeah, I'm far away with me too dude, [Nombre 343] said -aaaah okay okay, [Nombre 004] said -what did you need, [Nombre 343] said -no, it's just that, just tell him that the engineer already called me that he already has the, the package printed that he told me about, [Nombre 004] said -uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, [Nombre 343] said -the thing about the plans, [Nombre 004] said -the plans yeah, [Nombre 343] said -yeah, so just that, well just that, just go pick them up, right, [Nombre 004] said -oh well it's just that we're around right now, [Nombre 343] said -oh no no no, but it can be later on, I'm just calling him so he knows and so that, so that, so he remembers that they're, they're a hundred, [Nombre 004] said -a hundred, [Nombre 343] said -uh-huh, [Nombre 004] said -alright I'll tell him right away, [Nombre 343] said -okay daddy, [Nombre 004] said -thanks [Nombre 343], [Nombre 343] said well, ok. Communication ends. Next, the following communication: From the tapped telephone line. Call identified with sequence number 0339672. The tapped telephone line maintains communication with the user of telephone service [Valor 196]. This call was made at 10:56:48 a.m on September 18, 2019. [Nombre 007] alias “[Nombre 109]” made a call to a Female identified as [Nombre 344], from which the following can be extracted: Nothing of interest until minute 00:01:23, [Nombre 007] said -hey sis, now in these days God willing I'm starting work already, [Nombre 344] said -where, [Nombre 007] said -with my brother-in-law with [Nombre 342], [Nombre 344] said -mmjuu, [Nombre 007] said -yeah, [Nombre 344] said -mmm okay, it's about time, [Nombre 007] said -yeah I'm going to start working and stuff, [Nombre 344] said -where are you going to start working, [Nombre 007] said -up here, there by the “Power” at a house they're going to build there belonging to that guy “[Nombre 153]”, [Nombre 344] said -aah okay okay, Nothing more of interest until minute 00:02:25, [Nombre 007] said -I better work there and stuff, I know that guy [Nombre 002] with that guy is going to have more work and [Nombre 002] is going to keep taking me along, [Nombre 344] said -yeah, [Nombre 007] said -and I'm going to start making money steadily. Nothing more of interest. Communication ends.\n\nAs we can see from these communications, it is clearly established that [Nombre 001] was indeed the one who built that dwelling; its specifications were even verified after the raids were carried out when its interior was described, and it is worth noting that high amounts for materials in the construction were established, due to the luxury and design of the internal infrastructure, but also it coincides with a communication from the absent accused [Nombre 161], who was hiring a crane to lift a jacuzzi to one of the dwelling's floors and provides the address of the house, which is so reflected in communication sequence number 0010126 (see Volume XVI, folio 5333 verso of the transcript file); all of which has only one reasonable explanation, which was that [Nombre 001] maintained a significant flow of money to invest in that construction, requiring the service of an engineering professional for the preparation of the dwelling's blueprints, and this is also added to sequence 0339672, where [Nombre 007] alias “[Nombre 109]” made the reference that he was going to work on a house they are going to build there belonging to that guy “[Nombre 153]”, as [Nombre 001] was identified» [sic] (cf. folios 806 to 808 of the judgment). The trial court also considered that the accused himself, in the statement he gave during the trial —which is as much a means of defense as an element of proof—, accepted that the dwelling was his, which only reinforces the conclusion that had already been built with the prosecution's evidence, regarding the ownership of the property. The accused tried to justify that the construction was carried out with lawful capital or at least funds not derived from drug trafficking, which was duly ruled out by the trial court, because —as indicated— his economic profile does not justify the construction of a property of those characteristics and with a value exceeding half a million dollars: «Finally, due to all the previously indicated reasons, the court verified the high economic value of said dwelling, which is reflected through the appraisal expert report from the Forensic Engineering Department of the Judicial Investigation Agency, which was documented through Report DCF:2020-0745ING, visible on folios 3043 to 3066 of Volume VI of the Investigation file, with it being established that the aforementioned dwelling had a value of (501, 996,130.78) million colones, with the expert mentioning that this value was obtained regarding the value of the works at market value, as well as using as reference the \"Manual de Valores Base Unitarios por Tipología Constructiva\" from the year 2021, published by the Technical Standardization Body (Órgano de Normalización Técnica, ONT), of the Directorate General of Taxation of the Ministry of Finance, where the New Replacement Value (Valor de Reposición Nuevo, VRN) is initially determined, to subsequently carry out the corresponding studies of the useful life of each structure and other data of interest to obtain the Net Replacement Value (Valor Neto de Reposición, VNR) of said structures» (cf.\n\nfolio 808 of the judgment). Based on all the information that has been compiled, this Chamber agrees with the a quo, in the sense that the prosecution's evidence effectively allowed for determining that the accused [Nombre 001] built that dwelling with money derived from the illicit activity of drug trafficking that he was also engaged in, therefore validly taking Fact 5.1 of the accusation as proven. Furthermore, the judgment states: «the amount of the value of that building is more than 501 million colones, an amount of money that has no logical explanation within a development scheme of a person, who as we have been indicating has no lawful financial backing, such as to establish that he could draw upon resources for the construction of a dwelling of that value; we are not in the presence of someone who maintains a solid company or is a high-level salaried employee, because without the court needing to indicate beyond the technical evidence, the truth is that the rules of logic and experience give us a parameter of reasonableness to understand that a person who has the capacity to develop a housing project of that level is because they acquire large amounts of money, money that they are investing in a luxurious house and whose sole purpose is to allow themselves to clean the flow of said resources and now give it the appearance of being lawful, because they have legitimized that capital and have placed it into the commercial activities of society» [sic] (cf. folio 814 of the judgment). Regarding facts 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10, this Chamber observes that they all share a common denominator, which is the accused [Nombre 030]. The evidence produced in the adversarial proceedings allowed the trial court to establish that said subject recruited third parties to register assets of the criminal organization in their names. The correct determination of the criminal responsibility of that defendant, concerning the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales), was corroborated by this Chamber when hearing the second ground of the material defense and the fourth ground of the technical defense of the appeals filed in his favor —for greater breadth, refer to said section of the ruling—. The judgment took as established that the relationship between [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 001] dates back at least to the year 2014, since in that year the former was detained for the crime of illicit possession of a permitted weapon, an occasion on which he was accompanied by [Nombre 001]. Additionally, the examination of the evidence allowed verification that [Nombre 030] was one of [Nombre 001]'s subordinates, since he participated in the security protocol that the organization's members developed around him. Specifically, he was located accompanying [Nombre 001] when he visited his romantic partner at the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center, as documented on June 29, 2018, and May 29, 2019. On this last occasion, [Nombre 030] was driving the vehicle make Toyota, style Land Cruiser Prado T, license plate [Valor 065] —this detail will be relevant further on—. Also, from sequence 04900430, at 10:05 hours, on October 2, 2019, the degree of trust existing between the subjects was verified, since in that communication [Nombre 001] called [Nombre 030] to ask him to help move him from the site where he was, due to the police presence. In that record, the servility of [Nombre 030] was clear, who upon [Nombre 001]'s call hurried to justify that they had agreed to see each other later and then offered to coordinate with a third party to provide him help. That dynamic is consistent with another event reflected in the judgment, which occurred on December 8, 2019, precisely at 17:30, when [Nombre 001], [Nombre 030], and [Nombre 022] were at the Monge store business, located in the vicinity of the Rotonda de las Garantías Sociales, a site where they suffered an attempt on their lives. As a relevant detail about the event, it stands out that [Nombre 030], when approached by judicial authorities, concealed the identity of [Nombre 001], who left the site after what happened and before the scene was attended. [Nombre 030] only stated that there was another person, his employee, without identifying them, which reveals his purpose of not linking [Nombre 001] to the event and thus ensuring his anonymity, as part of the protection measures developed by the organization in favor of its leader. The latter's identity was determined from the review of the surveillance camera recordings of the place carried out by the judicial police, in which he was observed together with the other two defendants. These are only some of the elements taken into consideration to corroborate a clear relationship between the subjects and the hierarchy of [Nombre 001]. As has been indicated, the members of the criminal structure carried out a whole series of acts of service in favor of [Nombre 001], including providing him personal security, protecting him from being approached by judicial authorities, and ensuring he left no trace of his actions, dynamics in which [Nombre 030] was seen involved. Now, from the evidence produced in the adversarial proceedings, the trial court established that [Nombre 030] was one of the people tasked with finding third parties to register assets of the criminal organization in their names. Additionally, he was responsible for obtaining vehicles for the gang, ensuring their maintenance, and even sought to equip them with security devices, while, as a result of the telephone interventions, it was established that there were coordinations to import armored equipment that would be installed in a vehicle, whose purchase required the authorization of [Nombre 001] —in that sense sequences 3026360, 05583055, 04499697— (cf. folios 751 to 755 of the judgment). All this information is relevant, because the facts described in points 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10 share common features and therefore cannot be assessed separately as the defense intends. It can be seen that in all of them, third parties acquired vehicles that were related to the organization and specifically to [Nombre 001]: regarding vehicle [Valor 125], its use by [Nombre 001] was corroborated, as he was traveling in it on December 3, 2019, when he was approached by the administrative police —cf. folios 803 to 804, 841, 847 to 848 of the judgment—; while vehicle [Valor 024], license plate [Valor 167], and the motorcycle license plate [Valor 168] were located at the dwelling located at [...], linked to said accused, which is referred to in Fact 5.1 of the proven facts and that [Nombre 001] himself admitted in trial belonged to him. All have a similar manner of acquisition, through third parties, who in turn are connected to [Nombre 030], who, as already indicated, was in charge of finding figureheads (testaferros) in order to register assets of the organization in their names. The persons who appear as registered owners do not have an economic profile that justifies the acquisition of those assets. The vehicle models are consistent with those used by the criminal organization during the investigation period and the activities it carried out.\n\nA significant number of vehicles, particularly the Land Cruiser model, were identified: the two already indicated with license plate [Valor 125] and [Valor 177]; the motor vehicle with license plate [Valor 178]—linked to [Nombre 046], which will be referred to later—and the [Valor 070], in which [Nombre 030] was seen on May 29, 2019. A vehicle of this same model with license plate [Valor 179] was located at the residence of [Nombre 030] during the raids carried out in this case. It was also documented that a vehicle of this same style was registered in the name of [Nombre 033]—spouse of [Nombre 030]—during the investigation period; however, the defendant was acquitted due to lack of charges. It was also clearly established that the gang used motorcycles for the escorts of [Nombre 001] when traveling on public roads; hence, the discovery of this type of vehicle in the possession of the accused is logical and reasonable. With respect to the vehicle with license plate [Valor 167], it can likewise be linked to the organization's own dynamics, since it had armor-type security devices, which corresponds to the negotiations for equipment of that nature carried out by [Nombre 030]. With respect to the Toyota, Land Cruiser Prado TX-L style vehicle, license plate [Valor 125], it follows from the judgment, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it was acquired by [Nombre 030], with the collaboration of [Nombre 019], for which cash payments of $24,000,000 were made—of which $6,000 were contributed by [Nombre 030]—, proceeds from the drug trafficking activity carried out by the criminal organization investigated in this case. The reconstruction of this event, as well as the relationship between [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 001], was reflected by the *a quo* in the sections of the judgment called \"Regarding [Nombre 030] and the acts of drug trafficking\" (cf. fs. 724 to 768 of the judgment) and \"Facts related to [Nombre 030] and [Nombre 019]\" (cf. fs. 834 to 860 of the judgment). Extensive reference was made to this aspect of the trial court's ruling by this Chamber—as already indicated—when hearing the second ground of the material defense and the fourth ground of the technical defense of [Nombre 030], which made it possible to determine that the conclusions of the *a quo* are correct and duly supported. It is important to note that, with the accused persons detained for this case, the vehicle was transferred to a third party, which demonstrates the manifest intention to hide its trail from the authorities. In the case of the Toyota, Land Cruiser Prado style vehicle, license plate [Valor 177], registered in the name of the legal entity *Vanguard Cleaning RC S.A*, it was established in the judgment that its legal representative is [Nombre 246], who also appears in that same capacity in the legal entity Emsevipri empresa de seguridad y vigilancia privada S.A., whose president is [Nombre 329], brother of [Nombre 033], spouse of [Nombre 030], thus again there is a clear connection with this last individual. The judgment states that, based on expert evidence, it was concluded that this company does not register economic activities with the Dirección General de Tributación of the Ministerio de Hacienda, even though its registration in the Registro Nacional indicated it was intended for industry, livestock, agriculture, tourism, service provision, and the export and import of all kinds of products. For their part, the Mitsubishi, Sportero style vehicle, license plate [Valor 167], as well as the Yamaha motorcycle, model WR450F, with license plate [Valor 168], were registered in the name of [Nombre 236], who has a child in common with a person identified as [Nombre 330], who, in turn, had registered in their name the vehicle with license plate [Valor 053], whose acquisition was attributed to [Nombre 030]—however, this aspect did not form part of the proven facts of the judgment because the date of acquisition of the asset dates back to 2016—, thus, once again, there is a clear connection with [Nombre 030]. The evidence revealed that said woman does not have any type of driver's license and does not register economic activities that justify the acquisition of these high-value assets, which were obtained in a period of less than two months, the first valued at ₡23,462,250.00 and the motorcycle at a cost of $12,900, which, it is worth noting, was paid in cash. It is reiterated that the Mitsubishi vehicle had installed armor-type security devices, which are equally expensive and coincide with actions carried out by [Nombre 030] to search for this type of equipment. As can be observed, the acquisition of all these assets has the same points of confluence, the possibility of linking [Nombre 030] in the acquisition stage and [Nombre 001] with their use and possession, so this Chamber finds no errors in the derivation made by the *a quo*, regarding that they were assets obtained by front persons (testaferros), but that their true owner was always [Nombre 001]. Regarding the claims made concerning [Nombre 236] and [Nombre 246], it is important to clarify that the Ministerio Público did not include them among the persons charged in this case, but rather opted to prosecute them separately. While it is true that, as stated by the defense in its appeal, the testimonies of pieces indicated in the indictment against those persons were non-existent at the time of issuance of the judgment, it is up to the Ministerio Público to decide the manner and timing of prosecuting them. For the purposes of the case at hand, it was possible to prove that they were not the true owners of the assets, which were actually held by [Nombre 001]. Hence, said persons could not claim any right over them, as they do not have the status of good-faith third parties. The existence of fraud (dolo), ignorance, deception, or any other circumstance that may have mediated in the registration of those assets in their name must be determined by the Ministerio Público, as it is the entity that holds the exercise of criminal action. What is relevant, as already stated, is that, for the purposes of this proceeding, the information set forth in the judgment is sufficient to determine that the true owner of the assets was [Nombre 001]. In addition to everything that has been indicated, as a relevant fact, it is recalled that when substantiating the criminal responsibility of [Nombre 030], the *a quo* recorded the communication with sequence number 0205741, from 20:26 hours on July 17, 2019, in which [Nombre 001] speaks with a third party, identified as \"[Nombre 234]\", with whom they held the following dialogue: \"[Nombre 234] said -Hello, [Nombre 001] said -go ahead, [Nombre 234] said -eeeh ok, it's done, we're missing the, the, to see if we can talk to “[Nombre 235]”, he says, what's his name “[Nombre 241]”, [Nombre 001] said -the fat guy, the fat guy, [Nombre 234] said -well the fat guy, yeah to see if we can talk to him, the, the, the girl, the chick, already sent me the accounts right, I asked her to also send me the husband's, [Nombre 001] said -yes, yes, yes, [Nombre 234] said -**we have ten people, adults, right, [Nombre 001] said -yes, but** **let's talk better in person, when, [Nombre 234] said -ready, eeh eeh, you** **tell me, [Nombre 001] said -well I'll call you right now, let's see if I can I'll call you right now, at** **any time, [Nombre 234] said -ready, ready, ready, [Nombre 001] said -okay.**\n\nEnd communication» [sic] (Emphasis supplied). The individual identified during the investigation by the aliases «[Nombre 241]», «[Nombre 241]» and «[Nombre 241]», was precisely [Nombre 030], so it is not coincidental that the subject «[Nombre 234]» asked [Nombre 001] about him and, furthermore, told him that he had found 10 adults for him. The objective of seeking these individuals was not made explicit in the communication, because [Nombre 001] interrupted the subject and asked him to speak in person, however, it is consistent with the dynamics reconstructed in the judgment, in which [Nombre 030] was linked to the recruitment of front men (testaferros) to register assets of the organization led by [Nombre 001]. The trial court aptly pointed out that the fact that the assets are not registered in the name of the defendant «is further evidence that in this way he avoided prosecution by the authorities, as has been detailed in this judgment» [sic] (cf. p. 830 of the judgment), with which this Chamber agrees, because it was possible to establish that the subject maintained secrecy in his actions and sought not to leave a trace of his activities, so the use of front men for the registration of his assets is part of that modus operandi.\n\nA different situation arises with the vehicle license plate [Valor 178], referred to in fact 5.14 and which, according to the prosecutorial accusation, was acquired by [Nombre 046], alias «[Nombre 252]». The judgment states that, based on the evidence presented, it was proven that the vehicle was acquired by said defendant, who made cash payments and the asset was registered in his name. It is also detailed that ([Nombre 046]) was one of the most active members of the criminal organization, with respect to drug trafficking activity. Regarding the use given to the asset, the lower court's ruling describes several events in which the vehicle was detected during the investigation stage. In the month of March 2019, it was approached by the judicial police while being driven by [Nombre 046], who was accompanied by [Nombre 010] and a third party named [Nombre 096], in an event that the judicial police linked to a contract killing. Later, on October 9, 2020, it was detected at a police checkpoint and was again being driven by alias «[Nombre 252]». In other sections of the lower court's ruling, reference is made to other moments when the vehicle was located, among them on March 25, 2019, in the Ciudadela León XIII. On that date, [Nombre 046] was seen driving the vehicle when he was heading to the home of [Nombre 161], alias «[Nombre 083]» (cf. pp. 565 to 566 of the judgment). On June 3, 2019, in San José, Tibás, León XIII, Garabito, in front of the Catholic church (north side), the vehicle was observed on public roads and in the vicinity of ([Nombre 046]) (cf. p. 566 of the judgment). On June 23, 2019, the judicial police documented a social activity of the members of the organization in the Club Alianza sector, in La Garita de Alajuela, an occasion on which [Nombre 046] arrived at the site aboard the vehicle of interest (cf. p. 571 of the judgment). From the foregoing, what is actually derived is that, in addition to appearing as the registered owner, the vehicle was under the possession and use of [Nombre 046], so it is feasible to understand that he was its legitimate owner. The foregoing is completely congruent with the conclusion reached by the a quo regarding this subject's intervention in the criminal activities carried out by the organization, as it classified him as a mid-level commander, hence it is feasible that he also acquired a high-value vehicle for his own personal use and enjoyment: «alias [Nombre 252] maintained a position of hierarchy since he was directly responsible for the storage, transportation, and distribution of drug shipments, which was corroborated when, on the day of the raid on his home, evidence linked to the criminal structure was located, including firearms, bulletproof vests, and near that home, in a Toyota Hilux pickup truck, license plate [Valor 030], specifically located in the sector of Ciudadela León Trece, North Alameda 04, since the vehicle key was kept inside the raided property, hence when conducting the search of the vehicle according to seizure record number 0076215, four transparent bags containing marijuana were found, in addition to two sheets of a form for procedures in the name of [Nombre 046], from the Compañía Nacional Fuerza y Luz S.A.» (cf. pp. 1040 to 1041 of the judgment). No direct link to that vehicle was made with [Nombre 001], other than it being used for some of his transfers to the Buen Pastor Institutional Care Center, which is part of the organization's dynamics, but does not determine that he was its legitimate owner and that ([Nombre 046]) was another front man. By virtue of the foregoing, this Chamber considers that fact 5.14 cannot be attributed to [Nombre 001].\n\nThe defense alleges a violation of the principle of correlation between accusation and judgment; however, it makes its argument based on the premise that the accused facts were not proven. As indicated when analyzing the grounds related to drug trafficking, had that circumstance occurred, the defect would not be a lack of correlation between what was accused and proven, but specifically one of evidentiary assessment. The facts that the trial court considered proven are identical to those accused by the prosecutorial representation, the only difference being that some were left out, but at least points mentioned by the defense 5.1, 5.4, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10 retain the same wording with which they were charged. Let us remember that the lack of correlation between proven and accused facts occurs when the judgment includes novel or surprising facts or circumstances that exceed the original accusation, regarding which the accused person did not have the opportunity to exercise an effective defense. It is reiterated that the presentation of evidence allowed for the reconstruction of a significant number of events in which the defendants were involved, such as, for example, the activity they had at a social club in the La Garita de Alajuela sector, which does not imply that a conviction was issued for them. Illustrating the behavior of the defendants was of great relevance to understand their dynamics and the leadership role of [Nombre 001] with respect to the other members of the structure. What is described corresponds to an exercise inherent to the presentation of evidence. The core of the accusation, which alludes to the money laundering (legitimación de capitales) by [Nombre 001], was not exceeded, and therefore the concurrence of the claimed defect of lack of correlation between accusation and judgment is not verified. It is not true that the accusation did not attribute any of the typical drug trafficking conducts to [Nombre 001]. Fact 5 of the accusation expressly states that the defendants, among them [Nombre 001]: «carried out actions to acquire, convert, transmit assets of economic interest, as well as to conceal the true nature, origin, destination, movement, and rights over various assets or their ownership; knowing that the money used to acquire them originated from the activity of national drug trafficking executed».\n\nThereafter, the remaining points of section 5 specify which actions were carried out by the defendant and included the construction of the dwelling mentioned in point 5.1, as well as the use of front men (testaferros) in collaboration with [Name 030], for the acquisition of the vehicles mentioned in subsections 5.6, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10; therefore, there is no defect in the charges (imputación). The information set forth in the accusation (acusación) was sufficiently clear, regarding circumstances of time, place, and manner, for the accused to understand the charges and be able to rebut them. What the appellant intends is for each of the points to be treated separately from the others, but the truth is that the accusation (acusación) and, in that same sense, the judgment (sentencia), follow a logic that requires analyzing them as a unit. The defense seems to understand that the only way to prove that the dwelling described in point 5.1 of the accusation (acusación) was built with money derived from drug trafficking is through direct evidence showing deposits, transactions, or payments to third parties by the defendant. It is recalled that our criminal procedural system is governed by the principle of freedom of proof, which allows facts to be proven by any lawful means of evidence. In this case, from the joint analysis of the circumstantial evidence, it was correctly derived that the dwelling was built with capital provided by [Name 001], which was ratified by the accused himself with his statement at trial. The absence of direct evidence on this point, besides being expected, is logical in a case like this, in which the accused persons had already professionalized the actions they carried out to hide the trail of the money they obtained from drug trafficking, as an example of this are the activities carried out by [Name 029] and his wife to make currency exchanges in small amounts through third parties, so it is not strange that the accused, and particularly [Name 001], took measures so that he would not be linked to the money used to carry out the construction. In any case, this is the defendant's modus operandi, acting with stealth and taking care of his movements to avoid leaving a trace or link to the illicit activities, which was corroborated from the investigation; hence, the circumstantial evidence considered by the lower court (a quo) acquires true value and relevance, according to which the capital with which the structure was erected was provided by [Name 001] and derived from the drug-trafficking activity he was engaged in. The appellant questions that the trial court indicated erroneous information, that the dwelling affected several properties, as he maintains that it only covers a single lot. However, that circumstance was correctly reconstructed by the lower court (a quo) based on the documentary and expert evidence presented at trial. Witness [Name 092] stated in this regard: \"the dwelling that [Name 001] reported was in Alameda 1, Ciudadela León 13, a mustard-colored corner house, at that time number 30; that dwelling, from the beginning of the case until its conclusion, we were able to document all the modifications it underwent and the permanence and use by [Name 001]; the changes, initially the dwelling was relatively small visually, as the case developed, floors and storeys were developed until reaching 5 storeys, encompassing a larger space than initially could be documented; registry-wise, I do not have the data on how many lots it covered\" (cf. p. 801 of the judgment). This statement corresponds with the expert evidence presented at trial: \"the court verified the high economic value of said dwelling, which is reflected through the appraisal expert report of the Forensic Engineering Department of the Judicial Investigation Organism (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), which was documented through Report DCF:2020-0745-ING, visible on pages 3043 to 3066 of Volume VI of the Investigation file, establishing that the aforementioned dwelling had a value of (501,996,130.78) million colones; the expert mentions that this value was obtained regarding the market value of the works, and the 'Manual of Base Unit Values by Construction Typology' for the year 2021, published by the Technical Standardization Body of the General Directorate of Taxation of the Ministry of Finance, was also used as a reference, where the New Replacement Value is initially determined, to subsequently carry out the corresponding studies of the useful life of each structure and other data of interest to obtain the Net Replacement Value of said structures; it was also established in said expert report that, in effect, as previously mentioned in this judgment, the constructed structure covers not only the property with Cadastral Map No. [Value 019], but also four additional properties, which present the following cadastral maps: [Value 020], [Value 021], [Value 022], and [Value 023], which reaffirms the court's analysis that, in short, it is not as ([Name 001]) sought to present it in his statement during the hearing, when he said that construction had been erected solely on his mother's lot or property; in that sense, unlike what was indicated by the criminal leader, the construction of the dwelling was public and notorious that it took place on those properties\" (cf. pp. 808 to 809 of the judgment). From the foregoing extract, it therefore follows that the value of the property was set not only by the characteristics of the structure but also by considering the number of lots or properties it covered, which are not limited to a single one as the defendant sought to portray at trial. The defense considers that the fact that the registered owners of the other affected properties were not called to testify was an impediment to considering the facts proven. It is reiterated that our system is not one of weighted evidence but is based on freedom of proof; therefore, it is not imperative to have specific evidentiary elements to prove a fact. In this case, the evidence was clear and conclusive regarding the manner and place where the construction was carried out. The fact that the registered owners were not called could only affect the seizure order (comiso)—which will be referred to later—but not the accreditation of the offense. Just as occurred with the facts related to drug trafficking, the defense sought direct evidence to prove the existence of an instruction or order from [Name 001] to [Name 030] for the latter to seek front men (testaferros) in whose names to register movable assets. However, as has been extensively indicated, a criminal organization, like a lawful company, functions through the establishment of roles and general mandates, so that the group members operate under the protection of these generic instructions, making it unnecessary to verify a specific instruction prior to each of the actions carried out by the group members in fulfilling the delegated function or functions. The contrary would hinder the structure, eliminating its fluidity and functionality. In this case, the joint analysis of the circumstances allows deriving that conclusion, given the submission and servility of the other members of the criminal organization toward [Name 001], among them [Name 030]; therefore, direct evidence of those instructions is not imperative. Moreover, the communication that [Name 001] had with the subject identified as “[Name 234]”—sequence 0205741, at 20:26 hours on July 17, 2019—is reiterated, in which the latter required making coordinations with [Name 030] because he had found 10 adults, which, in the context in which it occurred and given the defendants' behavior, aligns with the function of recruiting front men (testaferros) for the organization. Continuing with the defense's complaints, the fact that witness [Name 225] did not refer to transfers or payments to third parties for the acquisition of the assets held by the accused in no way undermines the conclusions reached by the lower court (a quo). The defense insists on the need for direct evidence to prove the facts. It is reiterated that, in a case such as the one before us, evidence of that nature is not required, since part of the care that the accused put into practice was to erase all traces of actions that could bring him responsibility. In that sense, it is not reasonable to seek locations of deposits in his name destined for front men (testaferros). The circumstantial evidence, which in this case proved sufficient, is what allows resolving the absence of direct evidentiary elements and is what has made it possible to derive, as the only possible conclusion, that the money used for the acquisition of the assets came from [Name 001] as a result of the drug-trafficking activity he carried out. The defense also questions that the testimony of the prosecution expert Elizabeth Cristina Segura González, an official of the Money Laundering Section of the Judicial Investigation Organism (Organismo de Investigación Judicial), was not taken into consideration, who, according to the appellant, stated that his client was not of interest to the investigation. This circumstance does not undermine the analysis carried out by the lower court (a quo). The deponent prepared the first extension of police report 10-SLCR-22-CPA-15-21, and at the beginning of her statement, she indicated that her role consisted of the following: \"I conducted the analysis after the raid of several files on asset acquisition; the prosecutor's office requested the collection of private information on various assets in order to determine how they were acquired and by whom; the private information consists of different files from vehicle sales agencies in which vehicles were acquired that were seized in the raid or that were of interest to the investigation\" (cf. p. 179 of the judgment). Considering that the movable assets were acquired by third parties and that [Name 001] did not appear as the registered owner of any of them, it is logical and expected that he was not a person of interest to the expert, given the specific study she was assigned.\n\nTherefore, her statements in the trial on that point, resulting from the questioning she underwent, do not alter the conclusions reached by the trial court. Finally, it only remains to be noted that the majority of this Chamber does not share the conclusion of the *a quo*, regarding the order for forfeiture (comiso) of the dwelling described in point 5.1 of the proven facts and which affects properties numbers [Valor 140], [Valor 016], [Valor 141], and [Valor 142], as it was issued without notifying (dar parte) the persons who appear as registered owners of those lands. The mother of the accused, who is the registered owner of property [Valor 140], must be excluded from this obligation to notify, as indeed, the judgment established that she was fully aware of the criminal activity carried out by her son and, therefore, the origin of the money with which the dwelling was built, so her status as a good-faith third party (tercero de buena fe) is ruled out. The judgment states: «the constructed structure not only comprises the property with Cadastral Map No. [Valor 019], but also four additional properties, which present the following cadastral maps: [Valor 020], [Valor 021], [Valor 022], and [Valor 023], which is ultimately completely contrary to what ([Nombre 001]) stated in his declaration during the trial, when he mentioned that this construction had only been erected on his mother's lot or property. This detail is important for the court based on respect for what is established in numerals 93 and 94 of Law 8204, regarding good-faith third parties; however, in this case it is completely clear, besides being public and notorious, that on these properties, a large-scale building was being erected, the publicity of which, in the court's view, was so notorious that a third-party person, its owner, would not have failed to make the respective claims to enforce their ownership rights, especially since it was definitively a place where, due to its location, it was public knowledge among neighbors that [Nombre 001] resided and, in the communications already analyzed, it was established that said dwelling was maintained for his use, so even though these third parties have not appeared in the proceedings to make their claim as good-faith third parties, the court also does not observe that they were unaware, without negligence, of the illegal use of these assets, and if knowing, they have not manifested their opposition to that use, and finally, it is not observed that these third parties have reasonably prevented the illegal use of the assets in the hands of [Nombre 001]» [sic] (cf. pages 1014 to 1015 of the judgment). Although it is true that the construction of the building was public and notorious, it is no less true that the persons who appear as owners of the affected properties were not given the opportunity to comment on the reasons why they remain in that status, despite the existence of a building on those properties. And as the trial court's ruling states, the properties «have maintained a genesis of acquisition as a product of social good, and therefore were acquired through state social aid entities for the most needy people in our society» (cf. page 1007 of the judgment), which makes it evident that their registered owners are persons to whom the State granted these properties due to presenting conditions of vulnerability that cannot be overlooked. The foregoing makes it necessary to give them the possibility of appearing in the proceedings, so that they can exercise their defense —if applicable— regarding the affected real estate. It must be remembered that forfeiture cannot be ordered without considering good-faith third parties, as indicated by numeral 110 of the Penal Code: «The crime produces the loss in favor of the State of the instruments with which it was committed and of the things or values derived from its perpetration, or that constitute for the agent a profit derived from the same crime, except for the rights that the victim or third parties have over them» and 93 of Law No. 8204 «The measures and sanctions referred to in the preceding articles of this chapter shall be applied without prejudice to the rights of good-faith third parties». That good faith has not been ruled out in this case, because the owners of the properties were not given an audience. This Chamber is completely clear that the forfeiture of the structure is entirely appropriate, because it was established, beyond any doubt, that it was built with capital of illicit origin and that its legitimate owner is [Nombre 001], but the particularity that this building has, of affecting several properties that are in the name of third parties, is a circumstance that must necessarily be considered when ordering the forfeiture, because it implies dispossessing their registered owners of those assets. Unlike what occurs with the registered owners of the other movable assets analyzed previously, regarding whom their status as front men (testaferros) could be established, in the case of the dwelling it is unknown whether the owners of the properties consented to the construction or if another circumstance arose that should be protected by the State, hence the need to give them the opportunity to appear in the proceedings. By virtue of the foregoing, the forfeiture order on the dwelling built on properties numbers [Valor 140], [Valor 016], [Valor 141], and [Valor 142] is annulled ex officio, and a retrial (juicio de reenvío) is ordered to correct the deficiency noted and to proceed in accordance with the Law. It is worth noting that this manner of proceeding has been upheld in various pronouncements by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, as can be seen from rulings No. 2017-796, of 2:40 p.m. on August 30, 2017: «The competent authorities must not only be concerned with recording the existence of the case and the respective seizure in the corresponding Registry; they must summon the owners of the asset, if they are different from the accused -persons who, depending on the circumstances, could even appear as participants in the investigated act-, as well as third parties who may be affected by the measure and whose rights are evidenced by being protected by public registry». In a similar vein, ruling No. 2005-1273, of 10:00 a.m. on November 14, 2005. The foregoing, because it has been understood that the right to a hearing is part of the due process that must be fulfilled before ordering a measure as burdensome as the forfeiture of assets. Based on the foregoing, unanimously, the two grounds of the appeal filed by private defense attorney Luis Cubillo Pacheco on behalf of [Nombre 001] are declared without merit. By majority vote, the forfeiture order issued on the dwelling built on properties [Valor 140], [Valor 016], [Valor 141], and [Valor 142] is annulled ex officio, and a retrial is ordered, so that this matter can be substantiated again, after correcting the omission that has been referenced. The foregoing, by virtue of the impossibility of separately forfeiting the building (which has been clearly established as a product of illicit drug trafficking), without also including in said disposition the lands on which it is situated, regarding which there is a pending discussion to be resolved. On this last point, Judge Escalante Quirós issues a dissenting vote.\n\n**DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE ESCALANTE QUIRÓS.-** With marked respect, I separate myself from the decision of the majority of this *ad quem* chamber, consisting of annulling ex officio the forfeiture decided by the trial court, regarding the real estate described in point 5.1 of the proven facts of the judgment. For the reasons I set forth in this dissenting vote, I consider that the unanimous position of declaring grounds one and two of the appeal filed by attorney Luis Cubillo Pacheco on behalf of the accused [Nombre 001] without merit, should not include any type of ex officio declaration regarding the cited forfeiture. As a first argument, I am of the thesis that the annulment of a forfeiture in an appeal of a criminal sentence cannot originate solely from the initiative of the jurisdictional body. This is so because according to the terms of numeral 103 of the Penal Code, forfeiture is a civil consequence of the crime and, therefore, any decision in this regard must be based on the activity or procedural impulse of the interested civil party. In other words, without a natural or legal person, who considers themselves harmed by a forfeiture order, making an express claim before the respective Criminal Sentence Appeals Court, the ex officio annulment is not legally possible. In this case, even though during the course of the proceedings, a prior hearing was not granted to the persons who, eventually, could have appeared to claim their rights as good-faith third parties, the truth is that there is no appeal filed before this court that challenges the forfeiture order decided by the trial court. That is to say, being faced with a civil effect resulting from the demonstration of two crimes – drug trafficking and the subsequent money laundering (legitimación de capitales) -, the nonexistence of an express claim determines that, in accordance with the dispositive principle (principio dispositivo) that governs in civil matters, an ex officio annulment is not appropriate. In this regard, I consider that despite there not having been a prior hearing for possible good-faith third parties, if there is also no claim regarding the forfeiture decided by the *a quo*, this implies that, in accordance with the cited principle: “…in the procedural sphere, no one is forced to sue, to answer or oppose a judicial action, to file an appeal or incident, or to offer evidence if they do not wish to do so.” (judgment number 0798-2020, issued at 4:51 p.m. on June 23, 2020, First Civil Appeals Court of San José). As a complement to the foregoing, and being therefore this my second argument for not sharing the ex officio decision of the majority of this *ad quem* court, I must indicate that just as the trial court correctly pointed out, the construction of the dwelling where the accused [Nombre 001] lived, was of such magnitude that it reasonably took a long time and was undoubtedly a work of public and widespread knowledge in the León XIII citadel, since it is known that this community is characterized by its small houses of modest appearance, as it is a marginal urban area of the canton of Tibás in San José. This being the case, if amid that social, economic, and architectural reality, the construction of a dwelling that notably stood out horizontally and vertically, encompassing four lots and totaling five floors, was begun and developed, it is valid to affirm that the natural persons who are registered owners of those parcels knew of the construction and, for some reason, consented to it.\n\nIn this regard, the judgment indicated that: “…in this case it is completely clear, in addition to being public and notorious, that on those properties, a large building was being erected which, for the court, its publicity was so notorious that a third party, its owner, would not have made the respective claims to assert their ownership rights, especially since it was ultimately a place that, due to its location, was publicly known by the neighbors that [Name 001] resided there and that in the communications already analyzed, it was established that said dwelling remained in his use, so that even though these third parties have not appeared in the proceedings to make their claim as good-faith third parties, the court also does not observe that they were unaware, without negligence intervening, of the illegal use of these assets, and if having knowledge, they have not manifested their opposition to that use and finally, it is not observed that these third parties have reasonably prevented the illegal use of the assets, in the hands of [Name 001], so the court has absolute certainty that said real estate was used to establish the building of [Name 001] and in light of that, what is ordered and is consistent with the evidence, is the forfeiture (comiso) of the real estate located in [...] located on the following properties and survey plans, registration number [Value 014], [Value 014], [Value 015], [Value 209], [Value 017] and [Value 018], survey plans [Value 019], [Value 020], [Value 021], [Value 022] and [Value 176] in favor of the Costa Rican Drug Institute.” (cfr. judgment, folio 1014). Consequently, I agree with the trial court, in the sense that if no person reported the usurpation of their land, did not oppose it even when [Name 001] was detained, did not request help from police or judicial authorities, and clearly has not made a claim within this criminal process, it is valid to infer that they are not good-faith third parties who are unaware of what happened with the lots, hence, if from their evident inaction over several years it can be deduced that they indeed consented to [Name 001] building a large house, there was certainly no reason for the criminal court to deny the forfeiture (comiso), it having been proven with certainty that said property was built with money from drug trafficking. Therefore, by virtue of the arguments set forth, especially the inexistence of an express claim that, in accordance with the theory of one’s own acts applicable to matters of a patrimonial nature, would give applicability to the party-disposition principle (principio dispositivo), I depart from the decision of the majority of this court, and I consider that it is not viable to unofficially annul the forfeiture (comiso) of the aforementioned property.-\n\nXXXIX. First ground of the appeal filed by René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, in his capacity as special judicial representative of [Name 331]. He alleges “Violation of procedural law due to illegal reasoning and violation of Due Process. Concomitant protest for defective procedural activity of an absolute nature in the procedure, causing the ineffectiveness of the judgment in the declaration and order of forfeiture of assets of a deceased defendant not tried in the criminal proceeding” [sic]. He cites articles 1, 142, 175, 178, 184, 200, 367, 458, 459, 489, 490 and following of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal); 520, 521, 547, 541, 548, 572 of the Civil Code (Código Civil); 103 subsection 3) and 110 of the Penal Code (Código Penal); 58, 69, 77 and 83 of Law No. 8204. He states that [Name 046] was charged in this case, but died on December 2, 2022, so he did not have that status when the trial was held. He details that, despite being deceased, he was tried, his authorship and guilt for the acts charged were declared; in addition, the forfeiture of the assets of his property was ordered and the only thing omitted was the imposition of a penalty. He argues that the definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) that should have been issued following his death was not resolved. He partially transcribes the judgment, then states that after the criminal liability of the deceased [Name 046] was established, the forfeiture of the assets that were seized from him as a defendant was ordered, in accordance with article 83 of Law No. 8204. He argues that, by virtue of [Name 046] having died, no effect can be generated from the facts with which he was charged, because the criminal action is extinguished, which should have been established in the judgment of definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo). He considers that the ordered forfeiture is illegal. He states that the reasoning is illegal and violates due process because it is illegitimate and improper for the judgment to declare the illicitness of the assets seized from the now deceased, because the fate of these should have been defined in the judgment of definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) and not in a conviction judgment issued in a trial in which he did not participate. He alleges that in the judgment, authorship, commission and guilt for the facts were attributed to him, despite his death, through an illogical and illegal assessment that led to the loss of the assets through forfeiture. He believes that the assets should return to the heirs, as the guilt of the deceased causer or the origin of the assets could not be proven. He reiterates that the extinction of the criminal action due to death meant that the forfeiture could only be analyzed and assessed through the judgment of definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) that should have been issued and not in the judgment derived from a trial. He considers that the right of inheritance was violated, due to a lack of defense regarding the effects seized from the deceased. He accuses that the right of defense, hearing, evidence and private property of the heirs of the deceased over all the seized assets was violated. He emphasizes that since it is not possible to try the defendant in criminal proceedings because he died, the seized assets cannot be disposed of. He adds that, in any case, the heirs must be informed at the time of issuing the resolution, so they can exercise their right of defense over the seized assets. He accuses that there is an illegitimate reasoning in the judgment, a violation of due process in the attribution of authorship and guilt for the facts to the deceased, as well as in the forfeiture order over the seized assets. He reiterates that it was only possible to rule on the assets in the judgment of definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo). Regarding the grievance, he describes that the heir and executor of the deceased defendant was affected, because he was not a procedural party, which harmed his right of property, disposition and possession of the assets seized from the deceased. He considers that the nullity of the judgment must be declared, with respect to the forfeiture order of the assets, as well as in the determination of the commission, authorship and guilt of the illicit acts attributed to [Name 046], despite having died. He requests the issuance of a judgment of definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) and that the fate of the assets be resolved. Second ground of the appeal filed by René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, in his capacity as special judicial representative of [Name 331]. He accuses “Violation of procedural and substantive law. Disagreement due to lack of reasoning in the declaration and order of forfeiture of assets seized from the deceased defendant [Name 046]”. He indicates that in the judgment, ([Name 046]) was held as the responsible author of the facts and the forfeiture of the assets seized from him was ordered, which he lists. He details that, in his capacity as representative of the executor and heir, he challenges the judgment to request the return and delivery of the assets, as established in articles 200, 490 and following of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal); 93 and 94 of Law No. 8204; 103 and 110 of the Penal Code (Código Penal). He relates that the forfeiture of the assets seized from the deceased was ordered, despite not being a procedural party in the trial and judgment he challenges. He reproduces a passage from the judgment, then criticizes that the only basis provided to declare the forfeiture was that the assets were found at the domicile of ([Name 046]) during the raid carried out, without any evidence or reasonable grounds being analyzed that the assets come from drug trafficking activity. He considers it possible that the assets have another origin or were obtained in another way. He accuses that the judgment does not explain why it qualifies them as illicit or proceeds from drug trafficking, to which he adds that making assumptions is not valid. He transcribes articles 200 and 490 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal). He argues that the defect of lack of reasoning occurs by virtue of the fact that the judgment does not explain, develop or give reasons why the assets seized from the now deceased are necessarily illicit or proceeds from drug trafficking and not from another activity or origin. He indicates that the simple fact that they were found in the possession of the deceased does not allow establishing that they are illicit and therefore can be seized. He argues that the judgment must establish the reason why the assets are subject to forfeiture, with its evidentiary basis, which the judgment fails to do and causes its nullity. He states that the judgment does not explain the omission or rejection of what is provided in articles 200 and 490 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal); 93 and 94 of Law No. 8204; 103 and 110 of the Penal Code (Código Penal), so the reasoning is insufficient. He asserts that the judgment does not explain the reason why the return of the seized assets was not ordered. As a grievance, he affirms that his client was deprived of the right of property, regarding the assets that belonged to the deceased, through an unfounded confiscatory measure. He argues that the judgment should be partially reversed, with respect to the forfeiture of the assets, to which the estate is entitled.\n\nThe appeal must be granted. Since the two grounds of appeal deal with the same issue, they are heard and resolved jointly. The general rule regarding forfeiture is established in article 110 of the Penal Code (Código Penal), according to which: “The crime produces the loss in favor of the State of the instruments with which it was committed and of the things or values coming from its commission, or that constitute for the agent a profit derived from the same crime, except for the right that the victim or third parties may have over them. Vehicles involved in the commission of the acts defined in article 254 bis(*) of the Penal Code are excluded from this provision.” Although the figure is located within Title VII of the First Part of the Penal Code (Código Penal), under the name of “Civil consequences of the punishable act”, it does not really have that character, since in civil matters the party-disposition principle (principio dispositivo) governs, according to which, the parties have the monopoly of the process, in its initiation, progress and termination, which implies that the jurisdictional authority must be urged to intervene. On the other hand, forfeiture can be declared even ex officio. In addition to the above, forfeiture lacks the compensatory, restitutive or reparative function that characterizes the civil consequences of the crime, and it also does not require the proof of damage for its origin. Regarding its legal nature, national doctrine states: “Costa Rican forfeiture is, simply, a consequence indicated by the legislator for the crime (for a certain type of crime, as stated) that, although it has penal features (legality, burden of proof, innocence, connection to the act), civil features (proceeds against third parties) and administrative features (coercive power and state officialism), it does not precisely fit any of them and, therefore, principles inherent to the penalty (such as guilt or temporality), to security measures (such as personality) or to reparation (such as the party-disposition principle) cannot be applied to it. Hence, it is valid for the legislator to regulate it to be applied ex officio, establishing the loss of ownership as definitive, etc. However, this does not mean that, as a measure depriving rights that it ultimately is, it is not subject to principles such as legality and proportionality that are inherent, inclusive, to any sanctioning matter, even in areas of administrative law, as they are the only limiters of the State's power of authority […]”. (Chinchilla Calderón, Rosaura. Constitutionality, legal nature and limits of forfeiture in Costa Rica. Digital Journal of the Master's Degree in Criminal Sciences, No. 5, University of Costa Rica.\n\nAvailable at: https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/RDMCP). Because forfeiture (comiso) falls upon the property, for it to proceed it is sufficient to determine its connection to the criminal act. This objective character explains why it may be ordered even in cases where the criminal prosecution against the person does not succeed. Despite the foregoing, a proportionality analysis of the measure must be conducted in every case. Although Article 110 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal) —previously transcribed— does not expressly provide for it, respect for due process requires that those who hold a legitimate interest (interés legítimo) over the property must be informed of the existence of the proceeding, so that they may exercise their right to defense, hearing, and contradiction. Law No. 8204, which is of a special nature, in its numeral 93, does contain a provision in that sense, namely: \"The measures and sanctions referred to in the articles preceding this chapter shall be applied without prejudice to the rights of third parties in good faith. In accordance with law, the possibility of appearing in the proceeding shall be communicated, so that they may assert their rights, to those who can claim a legitimate legal interest (interés jurídico legítimo) over the property, products, or instruments\". In addition to the above, numeral 94 of the same regulatory body provides: \"The court or the competent authority shall order the return of the property, products, or instruments to the claimant, when it has been accredited and concluded that: a) The claimant has a legitimate interest (interés legítimo) regarding the property, products, or instruments. b) The claimant cannot be charged with any type of authorship or participation in the crime of illicit trafficking or related crimes that are the object of the proceeding. c) The claimant did not know, without negligence intervening, the illegal use of the property, products, or instruments, or when, having knowledge, did not voluntarily consent to their illegal use. d) The claimant did not acquire any right to the property, products, or instruments from the prosecuted person, under circumstances that reasonably lead to the conclusion that the right over them would have been transferred to him for the purpose of avoiding possible seizure and forfeiture. e) The claimant did everything reasonable to prevent the illegal use of the property, products, or instruments\". The foregoing provisions obligate the judicial authority to carry out several actions prior to ordering the forfeiture of property: first, verify the existence of third parties who may be affected by the order; if they exist, verify that they have been notified so that they may exercise their rights, and, second, justify in the judgment the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the forfeiture, after observing the provisions of Article 94 of Law No. 8204. The jurisprudence of the Third Chamber (Sala Tercera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, for a long time, has recognized the duty to safeguard the rights of third parties who claim a right over the property. In resolution No. 1998-74 of 9:15 a.m. on January 23, 1998, later reiterated in No. 2017-796 of 2:40 p.m. on August 30, 2017, it was stated: «[…] The competent authorities must not only concern themselves with noting the existence of the cause and the respective seizure in the corresponding Registry; they must call the owners of the property, if they are different from the accused -persons who, depending on the circumstances, could even appear as participants in the investigated act-, as well as third parties who may be affected by the measure and whose rights are recorded because they are protected under registry publicity -without prejudice to the allegations of other third parties who appear in the proceeding in claim of rights or legitimate interests (intereses legítimos) over said property, whose relevance must be analyzed in the specific case-, because the omission of this elementary procedure not only injures the rights of third parties, but also ruins the State's possibilities of forfeiting those assets[…]\" (Emphasis not in the original). In a similar sense, vote No. 2005-1273, of 10:00 a.m. on November 14, 2005, from that same Chamber (Cámara) details: «In accordance with Article 110 of the Criminal Code: […] For its part, in accordance with Article 93 of the Law on Narcotics, to those who can claim a legitimate legal interest (interés jurídico legítimo) over the property, products, or instruments used in the commission of crimes provided for in that law, or the product thereof, the possibility of appearing in the proceeding shall be communicated, so that they may assert their right. On the other hand, Article 94 contemplates that the return of the property shall be ordered, when it has been accredited, in addition to the legitimate interest, that the claimant cannot be charged with participation in the crime, that he did not know of the use of the property, or knowing it, did not consent to it, but rather did everything reasonable to prevent the illegal use. Consequently, if these points were proven, the property should have been returned. In the present case, there is no record that the registered owner, […], nor the mortgage creditor, […] (folio 588 vto.) were notified of the forfeiture of the property, so that they could plead what they deemed appropriate, nor does the ruling refer to the circumstances contemplated in Article 94 mentioned. The judgment suffers from a lack of reasoning on that point, in addition to omitting the communications to the interested parties. For the foregoing, the appealed ruling is annulled only as regards the forfeiture of the Hyundai vehicle, plate # […], registered in the name of […]. The referral of the case is ordered for its proper processing in that sole aspect». Finally, vote No. 200600712, of 10:45 a.m. on August 7, 2006, also from the Third Chamber, stands out, in which it was indicated: «In accordance with the provisions in the text of Article 110 of the Criminal Code: […]. In that understanding, Article 93 of Law # 8204, on narcotics, psychotropic substances, drugs of unauthorized use, money laundering, and related activities, provides that those who can claim a legitimate legal interest (interés jurídico legítimo) over the property, products, or instruments used in the commission of crimes provided for in that law or the product thereof, shall be notified of the possibility of appearing in the proceeding, so that they may assert their rights. While Article 94 ibidem provides for the return of the property when it has been accredited - in addition to the legitimate interest - that the claimant cannot be charged with participation in the criminal event, that he did not know of the use of the property, or knowing it, did not consent to it, but rather did everything reasonable to prevent the illegitimate use, aspects that once accredited would allow ordering the return of the property. In the present case, it is observed ex officio, that there is not even a record that the registered owner, M (see folio 266) was notified of the forfeiture of the property, so that she could plead what she deemed appropriate. Consequently, forfeiture being a consequence of the punishable act and the Chamber appreciating the existence of a manifest case of defenselessness, violative of legal due process, by violating Articles 39 and 41 of the Political Constitution, not only to the detriment of the appellant, but also in damage to the registered owner, as well as an evident lack of grounds by omitting total consideration regarding the aspects contemplated by Article 94 ibidem, the claim is declared with merit. The challenged judgment is annulled, only regarding the forfeiture of the Toyota pickup, Tacoma style, plates # […], registered in the name of M. The referral of the case is ordered for its proper processing in that sole aspect». This Chamber (Cámara) shares the opinion expressed by the Third Chamber in the preceding pronouncements, since, by legal imperative, notice must be given to third parties who may have a legitimate interest (interés legítimo) in the proceeding, but, moreover, because the right to defense and hearing emanate from higher-ranking regulations and therefore cannot be ignored by the operators of the system in the cases submitted to their knowledge. In the case at hand, Mr. [Name 331], executor of the probate proceedings of [Name 046], appeared in this instance, arguing that the forfeiture order for the deceased's property was not appropriate. In this regard, the first thing that must be pointed out is that the appellant does not have standing (legitimación) to question the merits of the matter, with respect to the resolution of the criminal points, but rather only what pertains to the disposition of the property seized from who in life was [Name 046], so this Chamber's pronouncement is limited to that aspect. Having made this delimitation, it must be pointed out that the definitive dismissal (sobreseimiento definitivo) in favor of [Name 046] was ordered by the judge of the intermediate stage, in a resolution of 09:00 a.m. on March 8, 2023 (cf. fs. 4140 vto to 4143 fte). However, there is no record in the case file that, subsequently, any disposition was taken aimed at informing his heirs of the possibility of appearing in the proceeding, despite the existence of a large quantity of seized property and despite the Public Prosecutor's Office's interest over the property seized from [Name 046] being evident. The a quo ordered the forfeiture without contemplating said deficiency, which constitutes a transgression of due process that must be noted and that justifies the declaration with merit of the claim. However, it is necessary to add that the appellant is incorrect in asserting that the death of [Name 046] was an insurmountable impediment to ordering the forfeiture of the property that was seized from him. As indicated before, forfeiture is a measure that falls upon the property when any of the circumstances established in numeral 110 of the Criminal Code are determined —instruments with which it was committed and the things or values coming from its realization, or that constitute for the agent a benefit derived from the same crime—. It clearly does not constitute an automatic effect, but rather its proportionality must be analyzed in light of the characteristics of the case. This summary proceeding presents the particularity that, according to the prosecution's theory of the case, the use of front men (testaferros) to dilute the origin of the property was common, which is why the registered ownership (titularidad registral) did not always coincide with the true owner, so the decease of ([Name 046]) did not limit their pursuit by the Public Prosecutor's Office. On the other hand, although the death of the accused extinguishes the criminal action against him, according to the provisions of ordinal 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal), there is no impediment whatsoever for the judicial authority to rule on the existence of the facts in which he may have participated, when necessary for the definitive resolution of the matter.\n\nIn the sub lite, that determination was of interest, insofar as acts attributed to a criminal organization of which —according to the prosecutorial theory— ([Name 046]) was a part were judged, hence this Chamber finds no irregularity whatsoever regarding that point. Based on the foregoing, the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by [Name 331], in his capacity as executor of the estate of [Name 046], are declared with merit; consequently, the forfeiture order concerning the assets seized from the latter is annulled, and a remand is ordered for new proceedings on that point, after considering the provisions of Article 94 of Law No. 8204. The jurisdictional authority must take into account that the interested party has already appeared in the proceedings.\n\n**40. Third ground of the appeal filed by René Dagoberto Orellana Meléndez, in his capacity as special judicial attorney-in-fact of [Name 331].** He alleges \"Violation of procedural law. Lack of reasoning in the judgment regarding the failure to order forfeiture of assets in the 'operative part' (por tanto) of the judgment.\" He states that, in the operative part of the judgment, the forfeiture of the assets was not ordered, but rather their seizure (secuestro), which had already been carried out in the preparatory stage. He indicates that the foregoing circumstance, far from constituting a clerical error, consists of an error in the reasoning of the judgment, which must operate in favor of the accused, even though he has died. He argues that what is appropriate is what was ordered in the operative part of the judgment, where forfeiture was not ordered. He asserts that there may be potential disciplinary or criminal liability that the judges must assume, and their actions should not be protected or justified. In the section corresponding to the grievance, he highlights that, despite forfeiture of the assets not being ordered, their definitive return (devolución) was not ordered, thereby depriving him of their use and enjoyment. He requests that it be ordered that forfeiture is not ordered and, alternatively, that the judgment be partially annulled or revoked, solely regarding the lack of reasoning with respect to the forfeiture of the assets belonging to ([Name 046]), and that a remand be ordered \"without the trial court's decision being able to be remedied and corrected as it was defined on its part.\" **A ruling is omitted.** Due to the manner in which the first and second grounds of the appeal brought by [Name 331] were resolved, as it is unnecessary, a ruling on this present claim is omitted. It will be in the remand proceedings that have been ordered where the appropriateness or not of the forfeiture of the assets of interest to him will be determined.\n\n**41. First ground of appeal filed by [Name 045].** He alleges \"Violation of procedural and substantive law. Disagreement due to lack of reasoning in the declaration and order of forfeiture of a vehicle.\" He claims to be the legitimate registered owner of the vehicle with license plate [Value 030], make Toyota, model Hilux SRV, VIN number MR0HZ8CD5H0405001, over which forfeiture was ordered in favor of the State. He details that the sole basis used to declare forfeiture consisted of the use of the vehicle to commit the investigated unlawful acts, about which he has no knowledge and does not challenge, since the judgment does not link him to those activities. He asserts that the ruling suffers from a lack of reasoning, because the forfeiture is justified by the use of the asset for the commission of crimes, but it fails to set forth the reasons why his legitimate interest as the registered owner of the asset or as a third party acting in good faith was not considered. He adds that the reason why the vehicle was not returned (devolución) to him was not justified, nor was the correlation set forth between the use of the asset, the ownership he has over it, his lack of knowledge about its use in unlawful activities, and the conclusion reached in the judgment. He considers that the forfeiture became a confiscatory action, because he was deprived of his property, despite having a superior right over the vehicle and not having participated in the criminal activity. He claims to be a further victim by virtue of the fact that the vehicle owned by him was used by a third party without his knowledge for unlawful activities, even though he possessed it as a loan. He asserts that the judgment contains insufficient reasoning, because it does not explain the reason why the return (devolución) to its registered owner was approved, or rejected, as indicated by Articles 93 and 94 of Law No. 8204. He considers that its mere use in the commission of an unlawful act is insufficient for forfeiture to be appropriate. He cites as support for his position Resolution No. 2023-402, of 4:00 p.m., on October 24, 2023, issued by the Criminal Sentencing Appeals Tribunal of Cartago. As a grievance, he states that he was deprived of an asset of his property, through an unfounded confiscatory measure and without making him aware of the reasons for which that decision was made. He requests that the judgment be annulled with regard to the forfeiture of the vehicle of interest and that a remand be ordered for new proceedings. **Second ground of appeal filed by [Name 045].** He claims \"Violation of procedural law and due process, and concomitant objection of relative defective procedural activity.\" He indicates that, being the registered owner of the vehicle with license plate [Value 030], he is entitled to request its return (devolución), since he does not appear as an accused in the criminal investigation. He transcribes a passage from the challenged judgment and points out that \"it is noted as a common grievance the retention of assets not only of the undersigned but also of a deceased person, who is somehow linked to the vehicle that the undersigned claims, an aspect that is likewise contrary to the regulations and jurisprudence, since the person died prior to the trial being held, that is, in a state of innocence, which consequently entails the legal obligation to grant this appeal regarding the assets that must be subject to return (devolución) to each of the registered owners.\" He indicates that the vehicle's return (devolución) had previously been ordered by judicial resolution; however, the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) challenged the decision, even though —in his opinion— it was final, a precedent that was ignored by the trial court. He asserts that the judgment does not link him to the criminal activity, nor does it state that he was aware of the use being given to the vehicle; however, forfeiture is ordered for having been used to commit an unlawful act. He considers that the decision adopted was inappropriate \"for failing to meet the subjective and objective prerequisites of the criminal type of forfeiture as loss of ownership of the seized asset in favor of the State\"; furthermore, because he is not linked to the unlawful activity. He considers that the appropriate action was the return (devolución) to him as the registered owner. He reiterates that the forfeiture is \"atypical, for failing to meet the objective and subjective prerequisites established by law for its application and appropriateness\" and because, although the asset was used for unlawful activities, he is the legitimate registered owner and has no knowledge of the use being given to it. He indicates that the judgment accepts as proven, by not stating the contrary, that he did not facilitate the vehicle for its use in the commission of the unlawful act. He reaffirms that the forfeiture \"is not classified\" nor is it appropriate, and therefore its definitive return (devolución) is in order. He insists that the use of the vehicle in a crime is not sufficient, because if its registered owner did not participate in it, he must be considered a third party with a superior right; otherwise, a confiscatory and abusive measure by the State would be incurred. He requests the definitive return (devolución) of the vehicle. He cites resolutions of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) No. 1595-2015, of 9:20 a.m. on December 18, 2018; of the Sentencing Appeals Tribunal of the Third Judicial Circuit of Alajuela No. 466-2012, of 9:45 a.m. on June 12, 2012; and of the Sentencing Appeals Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José No. 1038-2018, of 2:55 p.m. on August 3, 2018. Regarding the grievance, he describes that it consists of being deprived of an asset of his property through the figure of forfeiture, even though it is not \"typical,\" which constitutes a confiscatory measure. He requests that the forfeiture be revoked and the return (devolución) of the vehicle be ordered. **Third ground of appeal filed by [Name 045].** He claims \"Violation of procedural law and due process, and concomitant objection of relative defective procedural activity.\" He points out that, from the beginning of the proceeding, the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) and the jurisdictional authorities were aware that the vehicle with license plate [Value 030] was his property, a condition that places him as a party to the proceedings, specifically a third party with a superior right or acting in good faith. Despite the foregoing, he was not considered a procedural party, nor was he summoned or notified so that he could be informed about the seizure (secuestro) of the vehicle of his property and thereby exercise the rights he holds. He states that his status in relation to the asset was ignored throughout the proceedings, to the point that the judgment does not mention him. He affirms that the defect to which he objects consists of not having been considered a party, despite being the registered owner of the vehicle of interest, which constitutes a procedural defect, because he could not request the asset in provisional deposit or its return (devolución). He considers that the omission is not excused, because it is the responsibility of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) and the judicial authorities to consider him a party to the proceedings on their own initiative (de oficio), as established in Articles 93 and 94 of Law No. 8204. He highlights that the duty to inform him of the existence of the proceedings as the registered owner was breached and prevented his participation in the oral trial in defense of his rights. He states that he appeared in the proceedings assisted by the legal professional Rene Orellana Meléndez —who held a special power of attorney— when the debate was underway, but was denied access to the case file, under the justification that he is not a party to the proceedings, in violation of his right of defense. He considers that a defective procedural activity of a relative nature occurred, due to the disregard of the forms and conditions established in Articles 70, 71, and 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), regarding his participation and exercise of his rights. He insists that he should have been made aware of the existence of the proceedings as a legitimate interested party, for being the registered owner, which is correctable by granting an audience in the judgment or by remanding the matter. Regarding the grievance, he affirms that he was not considered a party to the proceedings and could not exercise his rights as a third party with a superior right over the seized asset. He requests that the claim be declared with merit, that he be granted an audience, and that his petition for the definitive return (devolución) of the asset be resolved. He offers as evidence the pieces of the case file that are not judicial resolutions. He requests the convening of an oral hearing. **The complaint is declared with merit.** Because the three grounds of appeal deal with the same issue, they are heard and resolved jointly. The appellant [Name 045] challenges the forfeiture order regarding the vehicle, make Toyota, model Hilux SRV, license plate [Value 030], which is registered in his name, since, in his opinion, he had a superior right over the asset. Having analyzed the case file, this Tribunal observes that Mr. [Name 045] voluntarily appeared in the proceedings and requested the return (devolución) of the vehicle during the investigation stage (cf. fs. 3145 of the investigation file), a request that was rejected on reasoned grounds by the Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) (cf. fs. 3189 to 3191 of the investigation file). In this context, it was unnecessary to inform him of his right to appear, as provided in Article 93 of Law No. 8204, since that communication aims to ensure that the person knows about the existence of the proceedings and can exercise their rights.\n\nThat purpose was fully met in this case, given that Mr. [Name 333] not only knew that the proceeding was underway, but also submitted various filings, which —although they did not succeed in the manner he intended— were duly addressed by the investigating body. Where the appellant is correct is that, upon issuing the judgment, the procedural moment when the fate of the vehicle was to be definitively resolved, the *a quo* court omitted to refer to his claims over the asset, as its registered owner. This omission is relevant, because the order of forfeiture (comiso) could not be imposed without heeding the guidelines set forth in Article 94 of Law No. 8204, according to which: \"*The court or competent authority shall order the return of the assets, products, or instruments to the claimant, when it has been proven and concluded that: a) The claimant has a legitimate interest in respect of the assets, products, or instruments. b) The claimant cannot be attributed any type of authorship or participation in an illicit trafficking offense or related offenses that are the subject of the proceeding. c) The claimant was unaware, without negligence, of the illegal use of the assets, products, or instruments, or when, having knowledge, did not voluntarily consent to their illegal use. d) The claimant did not acquire any right to the assets, products, or instruments from the prosecuted person, in circumstances that reasonably lead to the conclusion that the right over those assets would have been transferred to him for the purpose of avoiding possible seizure (secuestro) and forfeiture. e) The claimant did everything reasonable to prevent the illegal use of the assets, products, or instruments*.\" In this case, because the owner of the asset expressly requested its return during the processing of the case, his arguments should have been considered and a decision rendered accordingly, either granting or rejecting his claims, an aspect that was omitted. Although the judgment clearly establishes a link between the motor vehicle and its use for the commission of an illicit drug trafficking offense —which constitutes one of the prerequisites for forfeiture, as indicated in Article 110 of the Criminal Code (Código Penal)— this circumstance does not relieve the authority of the duty to consider the rights of third parties who may be affected by the measure. By virtue of the lack of reasoning (fundamentación) noted in the trial court's decision, it is appropriate to uphold the grounds for appeal filed by Mr. [Name 045] and to declare them **meritorious (con lugar)**; consequently, the order of forfeiture of the Toyota Hilux SRV vehicle, license plate [Value 030], is annulled, and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered, so that this issue may be substantiated anew, at which time the arguments of the complainant regarding the ownership of the motor vehicle at the registry level must be assessed.\n\n**Sole ground of the challenge brought by [Name 044].** He details that the judgment ordered the forfeiture (comiso) in favor of the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad Pública) of a Taurus brand firearm, model PT92AF, caliber 9, serial number TFO56301, seized by means of record 093950. He indicates that he did not intervene in the proceeding as an accused or a witness. He recounts that on November 13, 2017, he filed a complaint with the Judicial Investigation Agency (Organismo de Investigación Judicial) for the loss of the firearm, at which time he provided documentation proving his status as the owner of the asset. He states that in March of 2024, the Directorate of Arms and Explosives (Dirección de Armas y Explosivos) informed him that the firearm had been seized in a judicial proceeding, which is why, on March 19, 2024, he requested the return of the firearm from the court where the case was being processed and provided, as support, an invoice, registration (matrícula), and permit to carry (permiso de portación); however, the decision was not communicated to him. He alleges a lack of reasoning (fundamentación) and insufficient reasoning. He points out that the judgment ordered the forfeiture without clearly setting forth the specific grounds or concrete reasons supporting the decision. He argues that the resolution does not mention that the firearm was seized from his person, that it was used in the dynamics of the investigated facts, or that it was used with knowledge of the illicit activity or any other reason justifying the forfeiture. He reiterates that the judgment does not connect him to the facts, not even as an accused. He considers it to be a true defect that the office or person in charge of the investigation did not locate or summon him to inform him of the seizure of the firearm, especially since a complaint for its loss had been on record since the indicated date. He emphasizes that, despite filing a request for the return of the firearm, the judgment does not mention him, and does not indicate the reasons why the return or placement into possession of the object was not ordered. As an injury (agravio), he states that he suffers harm by having to wait three months from the finality of the judgment to request the return of the firearm, despite being its legitimate owner and not having participated in the facts. He estimates that the lack of information about the object caused an impairment of his use and enjoyment thereof. He requests that the ineffectiveness of the order of forfeiture be declared and that the return of the firearm be ordered without the need for a remand. **The ground is declared meritorious (con lugar).** A review of the records reveals that at folio 5030, there is a request for the return of the Taurus firearm, serial number TFO56301, signed by [Name 044], to which was attached an invoice from the business \"Armería Polini\"; a copy of complaint 000-17-032364, from criminal case 17-030882-0042-PE reporting its loss; a copy of a permit to carry a personal-use firearm, a copy of the firearm's registration issued by the Department of Arms and Explosives Control (Departamento de Control de Armas y Explosivos) of the Ministry of Public Security, and a copy of the applicant's identification card (cf. fs. 5030 to 5037 of the investigation file). In response to this petition, the Specialized Criminal Court for Organized Crime (Tribunal Penal Especializado en Delincuencia Organizada), in a resolution issued at 10:55 a.m. on March 19, 2024, ordered, in what is relevant: \"*the filing is noted, and since the mentioned firearm is under seizure and forms part of the accusation that will be resolved in an oral and public trial, it will be resolved in the judgment, and the corresponding notice will be made*\" (cf. f. 5038 of the investigation file). However, upon analyzing the trial court's decision, this Chamber observes that any reference to the request for return made by Mr. [Name 044] was completely omitted, which constitutes a clear lack of reasoning (fundamentación). The detected omission cannot be remedied by this Chamber, since to determine whether the return of the Taurus firearm, serial number TFO56301, to its registered owner is appropriate, or whether this circumstance yields to the connection that was made of the asset with the criminal activity —which gave rise to the order of forfeiture— it is necessary to carry out a weighing of a probative nature. If this instance were to decide on that issue, it would limit the right of the parties to broadly discuss the matter in another instance, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos). By virtue of the foregoing, the sole ground for appeal promoted by [Name 044] is declared **meritorious (con lugar)**; consequently, the order of forfeiture of the Taurus firearm, serial number TFO56301, is annulled, and a remand for trial (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue. At that time, the arguments of Mr. [Name 044] regarding the ownership of the aforementioned asset must be assessed.\n\n**Extension of pretrial detention (prórroga de prisión preventiva).** In accordance with Articles 10 of Law No. 9481 and 258, fourth paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal), as well as Resolution No. 2025-742, issued at 3:13 p.m. on June 26, 2025, by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Tercera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), the extension of pretrial detention is ordered for ([Name 004]), [Name 015], [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 019], [Name 013], [Name 030], ([Name 016]), [Name 022], [Name 029], [Name 007], and [Name 026], for a period of **twelve months**, counted from the date of expiration, that is, from November 21, 2025, to November 21, 2026, for the purpose of holding the remand trial that has been ordered to determine and provide the reasoning for the penalty to be imposed on the defendants ([Name 004]), [Name 015], [Name 001], [Name 010], [Name 013], [Name 030], [Name 016], [Name 022], [Name 029], [Name 007], and [Name 026]; as well as for a new discussion of the criminal responsibility of ([Name 016]) and [Name 019], for the crime of drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas). This Chamber takes into consideration that the circumstances that led to the imposition of the precautionary measure have not changed, given that the risk of flight remains subsistent, due to the weakness of the defendants' ties to the community (arraigos).\n\nIn addition to the foregoing, the declaration of criminal liability of ([Nombre 004]) and [Nombre 007], for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking (tráfico de drogas agravado); of [Nombre 015], [Nombre 001], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 029] and [Nombre 026], for the crimes of aggravated drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales); of [Nombre 019], [Nombre 030] and ([Nombre 016]), for the offense of money laundering and finally of [Nombre 010] for the offenses of aggravated drug trafficking and simple homicide, has been reviewed and confirmed by this Court in the present ruling, which increases the flight risk, since it constitutes a clear incentive for the accused persons to evade the criminal process if released, considering the high sentences they could face if their legal situation is consolidated. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in resolution 30505-2025, of 09:30 hours on September 19, 2025, stated: «On repeated occasions this Chamber has considered that a conviction may constitute a sufficient basis to revoke a release granted or to order a detention not previously imposed during the proceedings, since that circumstance changes the state in which the person subject to trial was before it occurred and in some cases be the cause of an evasion of the action of justice. This does not mean that the state of innocence enjoyed by the accused while a final judgment does not provide otherwise disappears, or that an illegitimate distinction is made, but that the situation of the accused in relation to the process changes. That change can alter their relationship with the purposes of the process and consequently motivate that the restriction on liberty be ordered, to protect those purposes, which also have constitutional roots (see judgment No. 2023-032737 of 09:20 hours of December 15, 2023, as well as judgment No. 2025-012212 of 09:20 hours of April 25, 2025)» (Highlighting supplied). In this context, the extension of the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention (prisión preventiva) is the only one that can effectively mitigate that procedural risk and keep the accused persons subject to the process, while the retrial (juicio de reenvío) that has been ordered is carried out.\n\n**Summary of the decision adopted regarding the appeals submitted for consideration**. Due to the length of the ruling, for a better understanding of how the appeals (recursos de apelación de sentencia) filed by the parties have been resolved, the decision is summarized as follows: The fifth ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Nombre 001], and the fourth ground of the challenge brought by Master Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defender of ([Nombre 016]), are declared without merit (recital V); the first ground of the appeal filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla Villanueva and the third ground filed by the defendant [Nombre 030], in exercise of his material defense, are declared without merit (recital VI); the fourth ground of appeal filed by the private defender Francisco Mena Ayales, on behalf of [Nombre 001], is declared without merit (recital VII); the first ground of the challenge filed by Francisco Mena Ayales and the first ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of [Nombre 029], are declared without merit (recital VIII); the second ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández representing [Nombre 029] is declared without merit (recital IX); the second, third, and fourth grounds of the appeal personally filed by [Nombre 029] and the third ground of the challenge filed by Marilén Solórzano Hernández, on behalf of that same defendant, are declared without merit (recital X); by majority vote, the first ground of the appeal filed by [Nombre 029] and the fourth ground of his defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández are declared with merit; consequently, a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of the penalty to be imposed for the crimes of aggravated drug trafficking and money laundering, at which time the principle of no reform to the detriment (principio de no reforma en perjuicio) operating in favor of [Nombre 029] must be respected. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (recital XI); the second ground of the challenge filed by the co-accused [Nombre 026] and the first ground of her defender Marilén Solórzano Hernández are declared without merit (recital XII); the first ground of the appeal personally filed by the co-accused [Nombre 026] and the second ground of her representative Marilén Solórzano Hernández are declared without merit (recital XIII); by majority vote, the third ground of the appeal personally filed by [Nombre 026] is partially upheld, and consequently, the sentence imposed is annulled, solely with respect to the crime of drug trafficking. A retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of this point, at which time the principle of no reform to the detriment must be observed. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. Regarding the penalty set for the offense of money laundering, the ground is declared without merit by unanimous vote (recital XIV); the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by Master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015], are declared without merit (recital XV); the third ground of appeal filed by Master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015], is declared without merit (recital XVI); the fourth ground of appeal filed by Master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, representing the accused persons [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015], is partially upheld; consequently, the 10-year sentence imposed on [Nombre 013], [Nombre 022], and [Nombre 015] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of that point, which must be held in observance of the principle of no reform to the detriment. The 10-year prison sentence set for the offense of money laundering remains unaltered (recital XVII); the sole ground of the challenge filed by [Nombre 007] is declared without merit. On the Court's own motion, by majority vote, the penalty imposed for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled and a retrial is ordered for a new substantiation of that point, based on the delimitations made by the majority of this Chamber. On that occasion, the principle of no reform to the detriment must be observed. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (recital XVIII); the first ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, on behalf of the defendant [Nombre 010], is declared without merit (recital XIX); by majority vote, the second ground of the appeal filed by the private defender Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, on behalf of the defendant [Nombre 010], is declared with merit; consequently, the sentence imposed on said defendant for the crime of simple homicide committed to the detriment of the minor [Nombre 180] is annulled and a retrial is ordered to proceed to substantiate this point again.\n\nJudge Escalante Quirós dissents (considendo XX); the third ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga on behalf of the accused [Name 010] is rejected. By majority, on the Court's own motion, the penalty imposed on the defendant for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled, because even though the legal classification did not undergo any change, the delimitation of his criminal participation established in this ruling could have some incidence on his criminal reproach, for which reason the appropriate course is to rehear this point anew. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXI); the second ground of the appeal filed by Dr. José Pablo Badilla is granted; consequently, the conviction entered against [Name 030] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, as well as the penalty imposed, is revoked and instead he is acquitted of all liability and punishment for said offense (considerando XXII). As unnecessary, a pronouncement is omitted on the first ground of the appeal against sentence filed personally by co-defendant [Name 030] and the third ground of his defense attorney José Pablo Badilla Villanueva (considerando XXIII); the second ground of the appeal against sentence filed personally by co-defendant [Name 030], and additionally, the fourth and fifth grounds of attorney Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030], are rejected (considerando XXIV); by majority, the sixth ground of the appeal pursued by Dr. Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030] and the fourth ground of appeal filed by the defendant are granted, the sanction imposed for the offense of money laundering is annulled, and the case is remanded for a new hearing, in strict observance of the principle of non-reform in peius. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXV); the third ground of appeal pursued by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, is rejected (considerando XXVI); by majority, the first ground of appeal pursued by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, and the fifth ground of the appeal filed by private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga are granted; consequently, the declaration of criminal liability of said defendant for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking, as well as the penalty imposed, is annulled and a remand trial is ordered for a new hearing. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXVII); the second ground of appeal pursued by [Name 019], in exercise of his material defense, and the fourth ground of his defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga are rejected (considerando XXVIII); the first ground of the appeal against sentence brought by Maestro Manuel Soto Aguilar, in representation of ([Name 016]), is rejected (considerando XXIX); by majority, the second ground of the appeal filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense attorney for ([Name 016]), is granted; consequently, the declaration of criminal liability of the accused [Name 016] for the crime of drug trafficking, as well as the penalty imposed for said offense, is annulled and the case is remanded for a new hearing. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXX); the third ground of the appeal against sentence filed by Maestro Manuel Soto Aguilar, private defense attorney for ([Name 016]), is rejected (considerando XXXI); the fifth ground of the appeal filed by Maestro Manuel Soto Aguilar is granted; consequently, the penalty imposed on ([Name 016]) for the crime of money laundering is annulled and the case is remanded for a new hearing on this point, in which the principle of non-reform in peius must be respected and the evidence offered by the defense in favor of the defendant must be considered (considerando XXXII); the first and third grounds of the appeal pursued by ([Name 004]) in exercise of his material defense, as well as the sole ground of the appeal filed by his representative Marilén Solórzano Hernández, are rejected. By majority, on the Court's own motion, the penalty imposed on ([Name 004]) for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled and the case is remanded for a new hearing on that point. On that occasion, the principle of non-reform in peius must be respected. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXXIII); as unnecessary, a pronouncement is omitted on the second ground of the appeal filed by ([Name 004]) in exercise of his material defense. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (considerando XXXIV); the second ground of appeal presented by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales, in representation of [Name 001], is rejected (considerando XXXV); the third ground of appeal pursued by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales on behalf of [Name 001] is rejected (considerando XXXVI); by majority, the sixth ground of appeal pursued by private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales is granted; consequently, the penalty imposed on [Name 001] for the crime of international drug trafficking is annulled and a remand trial is ordered for a new hearing on that point by the trial court.\n\nJudge Escalante Quirós dissents (Recital XXXVII); by unanimous vote, the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Luis Cubillo Pacheco on behalf of [Name 001] are dismissed, furthermore, by majority vote, the forfeiture order issued over the dwelling built on properties [Value 140], [Value 016], [Value 141] and [Value 142] is sua sponte annulled and a remand for a new hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered, so that this issue is heard again, after first hearing the registered owners of the assets. The foregoing, by virtue of the impossibility of forfeiting, separately, the building (which has been clearly established as proceeds from illicit drug trafficking), without also including in said disposition the land on which it sits. On this last issue, Judge Escalante Quirós dissents (Recital XXXVIII); the first and second grounds of the appeal filed by [Name 331], in his capacity as executor of the estate of [Name 046], are granted; consequently, the forfeiture order over the assets that were seized from the latter is annulled and a remand for a new hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue, after considering the provisions of numeral 94 of Law No. 8204 (Recital XXXIX) and, as it is unnecessary, a ruling on the third ground of that same challenge is omitted (Recital XL); the first, second, and third grounds of the challenge brought by [Name 045] are granted, consequently, the forfeiture order for the vehicle make Toyota, model Hilux SRV, license plate [Value 030] is annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered, so that this issue is heard again, at which time the petitioner’s arguments regarding ownership of the motor vehicle at the registry level must be assessed (Recital XLI); the sole ground of appeal brought by [Name 044] is granted; consequently, the forfeiture order for the firearm make Taurus, serial number TFO56301 is annulled and a remand for a new hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue. At that time, the arguments of Mr. [Name 044] regarding ownership of the aforementioned asset must be assessed (Recital XLII).\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\nBy majority vote, the first ground of the appeal filed by [Name 029] in exercise of his material defense and the fourth ground of the challenge brought by his private defense attorney Marilén Solórzano Hernández are **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crimes of aggravated drug trafficking and money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is annulled. A remand for a new hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority vote, the third ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Name 026] is declared **partially granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed solely for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled and a remand for a new hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The sentence established for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) remains unaltered. The fourth ground of the appeal filed by the master Josué Alvarado Zúñiga, on behalf of the accused persons [Name 013], [Name 022] and [Name 015], is declared **partially granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crime of drug trafficking is annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation. The sentence established for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) remains unaltered. By majority vote, the second ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney Víctor Rodríguez De Sárraga, on behalf of the accused [Name 010], is declared **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crime of simple homicide is annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation of that aspect. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The second ground of the appeal filed by the private defense attorney José Pablo Badilla Villanueva on behalf of [Name 030] is declared **granted**; consequently, the declaration of liability of the accused for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is revoked, as well as the sentence imposed, and instead, he is acquitted of all punishment and liability for said criminal activity. As it is unnecessary, a ruling on the third ground of the challenge filed by Dr. Badilla Villanueva and the first ground of the defendant [Name 030] in exercise of his material defense is omitted. By majority vote, the fourth ground of the appeal filed by the defendant [Name 030] and the sixth ground of his legal representative Badilla Villanueva are declared **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) on the accused [Name 030] is annulled and a remand for a new hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation thereof. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority vote, the first ground of the appeal filed by ([Name 019]) and the fifth ground of the technical defense are declared **granted**; consequently, the declaration of criminal liability for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled, as well as the sentence imposed, and a remand for a new hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority vote, the second ground of the appeal filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar, on behalf of ([Name 016]), is declared **granted**; consequently, the declaration of criminal liability of the defendant solely for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled, as well as the sentence imposed for said criminal activity, and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The fifth ground of the appeal filed by Manuel Soto Aguilar, on behalf of ([Name 016]), is declared **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed for the crime of money laundering (legitimación de capitales) is annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation. By majority vote, the sixth ground of the challenge brought by the private defense attorney Francisco Mena Ayales is declared **granted**; consequently, the sentence imposed on [Name 001] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The first and second grounds of the appeal filed by [Name 331], in his capacity as executor of the estate of [Name 046], are declared **granted**; consequently, the forfeiture order for the assets seized from the late [Name 046] is annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue. As it is unnecessary, a ruling on the third ground of that challenge is omitted. The first, second, and third grounds of the challenge brought by [Name 045] are declared **granted**; consequently, the forfeiture order over the vehicle make Toyota, model Hilux SRV, license plate [Value 030] is annulled and a remand (reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation. The sole ground of the challenge filed by [Name 044] is declared **granted**; consequently, the forfeiture order for the firearm make Taurus, serial number TFO56301 is annulled and a remand for a new hearing (juicio de reenvío) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue. By majority vote, the sentence imposed on [Name 007] for the crime of drug trafficking is sua sponte annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority vote, the sentence imposed on [Name 010] for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is sua sponte annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority vote, the sentence imposed on ([Name 004]), for the crime of aggravated drug trafficking is sua sponte annulled and a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered for a new substantiation of this issue. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. As it is unnecessary, a ruling on the second ground of the appeal filed personally by the defendant ([Name 004]) is omitted. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. By majority vote, the forfeiture order over the dwelling located in San José, Tibás León XIII, Garabito, Alameda I, on properties number [Value 014], [Value 015], [Value 016], [Value 139] and [Value 018] is sua sponte annulled; consequently, a remand for trial (reenvío a juicio) is ordered so that this issue is heard again, after first hearing the registered owners of the last four. Judge Escalante Quirós dissents. The remaining issues of the appeals filed by the parties are declared **dismissed**.\n\nThe extension of pretrial detention (prórroga de la prisión preventiva) is ordered for the defendants [Nombre 004], [Nombre 015], [Nombre 001], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 019], [Nombre 013], [Nombre 030], ([Nombre 016]), [Nombre 022], [Nombre 029], [Nombre 007], and [Nombre 026], for a period of 12 months, running from November 21, 2025 to November 21, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMónica Hernández Leiva\n\n\n\n\n\nAndrea Renauld Castro Max Antonio Escalante Quirós\n\nJudges of the Sentencing Appeals Tribunal\nSpecialized in Organized Crime\n\n\n\nExpediente: 18-000104-1219-PE\nDefendant: [Nombre 001] and others\nOffense: Aggravated drug trafficking and others Victim: Public health and others\n\n\n\nExpediente No. 18-000104-1219-PE – Voto No. 2025-0039\n_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________\nI Circuito Judicial de San José, San José, Edificio de Tribunales de Justicia, Tercer Piso. Teléfonos: 2211-5349, 2211-5350\no 2211-5351. Correo electrónico: sjo-tpenalapela-jedo@Poder-Judicial.go.cr\nPág. 1"
}
|
|