75 ordinary trial, but the objection was rejected in the judgment of June 20, 2001; d) “In the new trial, no order was issued to investigate the evidence for and against the defendant, as if the preliminary investigation was being reinitiated. This would have been necessary to correct the procedural irregularities that had invalidated the original trial in the military court”; e) The judgment of June 20, 2001, convicting Lori Berenson, did not allow for a difference to be made “between the evidence gathered in the military trial in violation of [Lori] Berenson’s human rights and the evidence gathered in the ordinary jurisdiction, which had not violated her rights”; f) The part of the judgment of June 20, 2001, setting out the facts, describes “one by one, the principal procedures included in the file of the military preliminary investigation”; g) The considerations of the judgment of June 20, 2001, indicated that the Prosecutor founded his charge on the fact that the alleged victim “was an active member of the MRTA terrorist organization” and that she had carried out a series of acts of collaboration which he considered “proved with the evidence described in the case file”; h) Although “the judge announce[d] that ‘this Panel d[id] not waive its powers to assess legality in order to decide the type of evidence that c[ould] or c[ould] not be incorporated into the proceeding,’ in reality, this legal assessment was never made”; i) The fact that the police investigation report was admitted in the trial in the civil court, “retaining its probative value,” is one more indication that the Peruvian State violated the right to a fair trial to the detriment of the alleged victim; j) The judgment of June 20, 2001 “was characterized by the absence of clear and specific grounds. [It] merely referred to a series of facts, which it declare[d] had been ‘objectively proved during the proceeding,’ but did not describe the evidence on which the decision was made and, much less, assess the probative value accorded to it.” The said judgment also “mention[ed] a series of facts, which it call[ed] ‘elements to be elucidated,’ and compare[d] them with testimony that had been obtained during the trial.” Nonetheless, “the judge did not give a clear answer” to these questions either; k) The document entitled “Cuestiones de hecho planteadas y discutidas y votadas en el proceso penal seguido contra la acusada Lori Helene Berenson Mejía, por el delito de terrorismo en agravio del Estado” [Questions raised, discussed and voted on in the criminal trial against the accused Lori Helene Berenson Mejía, for the crime of terrorism against the State], which contains 55 questions on the facts and the corresponding answers that determine whether the facts have been proved or not, contains “absolutely no reference to how the court reached that conclusion”; l) Under the Peruvian legal system, the statement of the grounds of a judgment is a constitutional guarantee. “This guarantee implies that the