The sources of evidence are included in the proceedings in order to lead to the means of evidence, but the nullity of the proceedings, given the recently explained differentiation, can only result in the invalidity of the means of evidence; in other words, the proposal, admission, processing and assessment of the evidence in the proceedings, but does not invalidate the sources of evidence. The validity or invalidity of a source of evidence depends exclusively on whether it has been obtained with strict respect for the fundamental rights. 367 250. Expert witness José María Ascencio Mellao and witness Pablo Talavera, both proposed by the State testified similarly. 368 In addition, regarding Ms. J.’s possibility of questioning the validity or illegality of the evidence that supports the criminal charges against her currently, Mr. Talavera Elguera also indicated that, although it is not expressly required by a norm, 369 the Peruvian courts “respect the principle of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.” 370 251. The Court considers that, during the proceedings opened against the presumed victim, she will be able to contest the sources of evidence that support the charges, which has not occurred to date because the trial in this case has not started. Therefore, as it has in other cases, 371 the Court finds that it is not incumbent on it to rule on the presumed violation of Article 8 of the Convention in relation to the presentation and assessment of the evidence during the second stage of the criminal proceedings against the presumed victim. 252. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the domestic judicial authorities must take into account the findings of this Court concerning the violations of due process and personal integrity of Ms. J., when examining the charges that are currently in effect against Ms. J. The Court notes that this is in keeping with the ruling of the Constitutional Court in its judgment, in the sense that the invalidity of a source of evidence may arise because it was obtained without strict respect for the fundamental rights (supra para. 249). B.2.2) Guarantee of non bis in idem i. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 253. The Commission indicated that it had insufficient evidence to conclude that the State […] had violated the guarantee of non bis in idem to the detriment of J. In this regard, it stated that 367 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, File No. 010-2002-AI/TCLIMA, conclusion 162 (merits report, folio 1578). 368 According to expert witness Ascencio Mellao, the nullity of the first stage of the proceedings, owing to the participation of “faceless” judges, is a “procedural nullity”; thus “it does not signify the exclusion of all the evidence, but exclusively that affected by the defect. And, in this regard, since the defect is solely attributable to the courts involved, it is not possible to attribute the same defect to the preliminary investigation, which remains valid, irrespective of the possible illegalities in the evidence, if they exist, and which the State must decide in its domestic jurisdiction and at the appropriate procedural moment.” In addition, this expert witness indicated that “it falls within the exclusive competence of the Peruvian State, of its courts, which must decide, once the proceedings continue, on the validity or nullity, the sufficiency or insufficient, of the evidence.” Affidavit prepared by expert witness José María Asencio Mellado on May 6, 2013 (merits report, folios 1093 and 1104). Meanwhile, Mr. Talavera Elguera, who was a judge of the National Criminal Chamber for Terrorism from 2002 to 2004, indicated that the evidence on which the charges against Ms. J. were based “was, strictly speaking, sources of evidence, because they can only be considered means of evidence when they have been assessed in the renewed oral hearing.” Affidavit prepared by the witness Pablo Rogelio Talavera Elguera on May 6, 2013 (merits report, folio 1083). 369 Article 159 of the 2004 Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that: “[t]he Judge may not use, directly or indirectly, the sources or means of evidence obtained in violation of the essential content of the fundamental human rights.” However, this Code is not in force in Lima and other regions of Peru. Cf. Affidavit prepared by the witness Pablo Rogelio Talavera Elguera on May 6, 2013 (merits report, folio 1085). 370 In this regard, he explained that “the courts or chambers of the National Counter-terrorism Chamber and the National Criminal Chamber have assessed the evidence based on the principle of the free assessment of evidence, applying the rules of logic and the rules of experience in the assessment of each element of evidence, as well as respecting the principle of the legality of how the sources of evidence were obtained; in other words, if, in a specific case, it was verified that a piece of evidence had been obtained in violation of the essential content of a fundamental right, it was excluded from the body of evidence.” Affidavit prepared by witness Pablo Rogelio Talavera Elguera on May 6, 2013 (merits report, folios 1083 and 1086). 371 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, para. 156. 75