14 3) When there has been a conviction for a crime that was not the subject matter of the investigation or the oral trial, or when there has been a failure to investigate or prosecute a crime that appears in the complaint, in the preliminary investigation or the charging document. 48. On May 20, 1997, the Interim Prosecuting Attorney before the Supreme Court of the Second Office of the Attorney General for Criminal Matters before the Supreme Court issued a decision on the motion to set aside the judgment filed by Mr. Zegarra Marín, arguing that that the appealed judgment should not be set aside, based on the arguments put forth in the charging document filed on May 2, 1996.24 49. On December 17, 1997, the First Transitional Chamber for Criminal Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled there were no grounds for setting the judgment aside, based on the following: HAVING REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE MOTION; partly agreeing with the Prosecuting Attorney’s decision; based on the grounds of the judgment at issue; and WHEREAS: the defendants’ criminal responsibility has been proven as well as the commission of the crimes that are the subject of the preliminary investigation, the punishment imposed on them is lawful; 25 (…). 50. On September 14, 1998, Mr. Agustín Bladimiro Zegarra Marín filed a motion for review of conviction26 with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic, against the final judgment of the Supreme Court of December 17, 1997, denying the motion to set aside the conviction, arguing that it had been based on erroneous facts and inaccuracies, inasmuch as the sole grounds for his conviction was a co-defendant’s accusation, which was uncorroborated with evidence, and it did not take into account any of the exculpatory evidence introduced at trial.27 24 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. 25 Annex 7. Supreme Court of Justice, First Chamber for Transitional Criminal Matters, Case File No. 1720-97, judgment of December 17, 1997. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 6, 2001. 26 Pursuant to Article 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in effect at the time, “A conviction must be reviewed by the Supreme Court, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the case was heard or regardless of the punishment that has been imposed: 1 When, after a conviction for homicide, sufficient evidence is produced that the alleged victim of the crime is alive or lived after the act was committed that was the basis for the conviction; 2 When the conviction is mainly based on the testimony of a witness, who is subsequently convicted as providing false testimony in a criminal trial; 3 When after a conviction is handed down, another one is handed down convicting someone else other than the [original] defendant for the same crime; and since both convictions cannot stand, proof of the innocence of one of those convicted emerges from the contradiction; 4 When the conviction has been issued against another prior one [conviction] with the status of res judicata; and 5 When subsequent to the conviction, events are proven by means of evidence that was not introduced at the trial, that may be able to establish the innocence of the person convicted.” 27 Annex 9. Case File No. 1720-97 (1ra. SSP), received on September 14, 1998 at the Supreme Court of the Republic. In-take Desk for Administrative Matters. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 6, 2001.