80 f) Once the hearings have been completed, the parties’ arguments are received, including the prosecutor’s oral opinion, and the chamber adopts two decisions: a) “it agrees on the proven facts by vote and reads out the result of this vote in a public hearing” and b) “in a separate act, it delivers judgment, based on questions of fact that have been voted on previously”; g) As with jury verdicts, “questions of fact” are not grounded, but adopted using the “criterion of conscience.” The vote on the questions of fact established in Articles 281 and 283 of the 1940 Code of Criminal Procedure, is a “different decision from the judgment, although connected to it.” Under the Peruvian procedure, “the grounds for the judgment result from their correspondence with the facts voted on”; h) On June 20, 2001, the National Terrorism Chamber voted on 55 questions of fact and declared that they had been proved; the Chamber “sentenced the alleged victim in a separate act.” The “unacceptable disregard” of this procedure in the application shows that the Commission did not know it existed, and was totally unaware of its procedural significance; i) When the proceeding before the military court had been annulled, “the case file was sent to [a] new prosecutor, who filed a new complaint, drawn up according to his criteria and with no connection to the proceedings in the military trial.” After the prosecutor’s complaint was filed, “a new judge decided on the opening of the preliminary investigation in accordance with norms that had no relation to those applied during the military proceeding”; j) The National Terrorism Chamber, “when organizing the oral proceeding, made a clear difference between the probative procedures which took place during the hearings, the proceedings during the pre-trial investigation stage, and the records prepared before the start of the preliminary investigation”; k) The alleged victim’s defense lawyer “requested the incorporation of the records from the military jurisdiction during the debates of the oral proceeding”; l) “[T]he procedures in force in Peru do not include any norm or mechanism that allows a judge or a chamber to refuse to add to his own case files, records and files prepared during the procedures carried out before the order to open the pre-trial investigation (in this case, prior to August 28, 2000). Nor is there any procedure that prevents requesting the reading and discussion of records prepared before the opening of the pre-trial investigation”; m) “There are no norms in the Convention or in other international instruments for the protection of human rights that make it obligatory to use one specific legal theory regarding the procedural consequences of defects” in the way evidence is processed; n) “The specific regime for excluding evidence adopted by the courts of justice in each country, and the option they adopt, within the framework of the alternatives recognized by the relevant comparative law, is not an issue that can be decided under the rules of the American Convention”;