90 by the National Terrorism Chamber and confirmed the proceeding (supra para. 88(72)). 174. When examining the whole proceeding in the ordinary jurisdiction, it can be seen that the elements of evidence from the military trial were presented in it, and also elements of evidence gathered directly by the ordinary jurisdiction. The Court considers that the former evidence is inadmissible, taking into account the circumstances in which it was produced. At the same time, this Court notes that, as has been stated and confirmed, probative evidence was produced in the course of the civil proceeding that led to establishing the facts on which the trial and the corresponding judgment were founded. Evidently, the Court does not rule on the effectiveness of this evidence in this specific case, since this corresponds to the domestic jurisdiction. b(3) Grounds for the judgment in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction 175. The Commission also argued that the grounds for the judgment convicting the alleged victim in the ordinary jurisdiction were not described, since the evidence on which this decision was based was not made explicit and its probative value was not examined (supra para. 129(2)(j)). The State indicated that, in Peru, “questions of fact” are not grounded, rather they are defined using the “criterion of conscience” and by means of a document which, pursuant to Article 281 of the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedure, has previously been voted on by the judge (supra para. 131(g)), and which appears in the body of evidence of this case (supra para. 88(61)). 176. The concept of due process of law in criminal cases should include, at the very least, the minimum guarantees established in Article 8 of the Convention. By referring to them as minimum guarantees, the Convention assumes that additional guarantees may be necessary in specific circumstances to ensure a fair hearing.254 177. Article 139(5) of the Peruvian Constitution, which refers to the principles and rights of the jurisdictional function, requires: [t]he written reasoning behind judicial decisions in all instances, except decisions on mere procedures, with specific mention of the applicable law and the factual grounds that support it. 178. The Court notes that, when delivering judgment, the national tribunal adhered to the provisions of Articles 281 and 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.255 These Articles state that: Article 281 To deliver judgment, the Court shall previously set out and vote on each of the questions of fact, bearing in mind, when formulating them, the written conclusions of the prosecutor, the defense lawyers, and the civil party. Then a vote will be held on the penalty. Both decisions shall be stated in the judgment. 254 Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 24. 255 Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure of Peru (file of probative evidence provided by the State, tome 12, folios 9174 to 9342).