13 that he is charged with, while the expert handwriting report and the functional organizational 20 structure evidence are the only evidence introduced in order to grant his conditional release. 46. The judgment concludes, based on the foregoing considerations, that with regard to defendant Zegarra Marín (…) we have been able to establish that he was fully aware of the irregularities that were occurring in the Office of Migration of Tumbes, as is confirmed by his co-defendant Cárdenas Hurtado who has directly accused him and asserts as well that he is responsible for the crimes, therefore it must also be the case with Zegarra Marín who was fully aware of the passport trafficking and even managed to profit, thus constituting complicity of this agent in the materialization of the criminal offense, corroborating the accusations made through the 21 statements of his co-defendant Moreno Palacios; (…). 47. Mr. Zegarra Marín filed a motion to set aside the conviction (judgment)22 of November 23 8, 1996. Pursuant to Article 298 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in effect at the time, the grounds for setting aside a judgment are confined to: 1) When during the preliminary investigation, or the trial proceedings, there are serious procedural and due process irregularities and omissions as established by Criminal Procedural Law; 2) When the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or the Court that conducted the trial was not competent to do so; 20 Annex 4. Case File No. 987-94, Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Fifth Chamber for Criminal Matters, Judgment of November 8, 1997, pgs. 19 to 23, signed by Príncipe Trujillo, Chief Justice and Doctors of Law [D.D], Díaz Mejía, Member of the Court, Ruiz Cueto, Member of the Court, and Darcy Zegarra Molina, Clerk of the Court. Annex to petitioner’s submission received on November 6, 2001. 21 Annex 4. Case File No. 987-94, Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Fifth Chamber for Criminal Matters, Judgment of November 8, 1997, pgs. 33 and 34, signed by Príncipe Trujillo, Chief Justice and Doctors of Law [D.D], Díaz Mejía, Member of the Court, Ruiz Cueto, Member of the Court, and Darcy Zegarra Molina, Clerk of the Court. Annex to petitioner’s submission received on November 6, 2001. 22 Article 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in effect at the time read that: “.-A motion to set aside a judgment (conviction) is admissible: 1 Against judgments in regular proceedings; 2 Against the granting and revocation of a sentence of probation; 3 Against rulings on objections and preliminary or pretrial motions; 4 Against dispositive rulings which extinguish the action or put an end to the proceeding or the appeal; 5 Against final rulings in Habeas Corpus actions; 6 In any instances in which the law expressly provides for said remedy. As an exception, the Supreme Court, by means of a petition in error because of denial of appeal [i.e. refusal to grant leave to appeal], may grant a motion to set aside a judgment when a violation of the Constitution or a serious violation of substantive or procedural provisions of criminal law are involved.” 23 Annex 8. Office of the Public Prosecutor, Preliminary Investigation Nº 987-94, C.S. Nº 1720, Superior Court of Lima, Ruling Nº 1985-97-2FSP-MP, signed by Dr. Juan Efraín Chil, Interim Prosecutor before the Supreme Court of the Second Office of the Attorney General before the Supreme Court for Criminal Matters, May 20, 1997. Annex to State’s submission of July 1, 2003.