15 51. In a communication dated November 5, 1999,28 the Supreme Court of Justice served Mr. Zegarra Marín notice of the August 24, 1999 decision denying the motion to review the conviction because the instance argued by the appellant for the Court to grant it under Article 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in effect at the time, was actually not included under that Article.29 Notwithstanding, in the Report issued on November 2, 1998 by Supreme Court Justices Jose Bacigalupo Hurtado and Ismael Paredes Lozano, in support of the previous decision, it is noted that: As of the date of the filing of the motion for review of conviction and at the present time, Article 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is still in force, which regulates the procedure for a Motion to Review Conviction and sets limits on the instances in which it is in order, but the instance claimed by the appellant, unfortunately is not set forth in this provision of the code; however, it must be noted that in examining the conviction before us under challenge by the appellant, it has been noticed indeed that not all of the evidence introduced has been examined or evaluated, particularly that [the evidence] listed in annex 9 of this notebook, which is favorable to the situation of the appellant, and is fundamentally grounded in the accusation made by the co-defendants, even though no other corroborating evidence exists in support of this accusation, and it is even argued in this Decision in finding Zegarra Marín responsible (Whereas Clause 13) that he has not introduced any exculpatory evidence to totally prove his innocence, thus violating the due process protection for failure to provide sufficient basis in law and fact in the aforementioned decision, which entails examining and evaluating every piece of evidence introduced in the proceedings, even though this is required under Article 139, 30 subsection 5 of the Constitution of the State and Article 285 of the Code of Criminal 31 Procedure, and also because the principle of the presumption of innocence as a fundamental right of every person has been reversed in violation of Article 2, paragraph 24 of our fundamental charter, and these omissions and transgressions were not noted in the Final Judgment of the Supreme Court copied on pg. 74; this situation has given rise to the appellant’s motion to review the conviction, which calls for justice after being arbitrarily convicted and, in light of the 32 evidence, the plenary of this highest body of justice may adopt some measure. 28 Annex 10. Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic. Official Letter Nº 509-99-SG-CS/PJ, signed by Roberto Quezada Romero, General Clerk of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 6, 2001. 29 Annex 11. Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic A.A. Nº 170-98, ruling of August 24, 1999, signed by Víctor R. Castillo Castillo, Chief Justice, and Roberto Quezada Romero, General Clerk of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 6, 2001. 30 Article 139.5 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Peru: “The following are principles and rights of the judicial function: 5. Written basis in fact and law of judicial decisions at every level of the courts, except for decrees of mere procedure, with express mention of applicable law and of the basis in fact upon which they are supported.” 31 Article 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “A conviction must specifically name the offender, state the criminal act, the evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses or other evidence upon which guilt is based, the circumstances of the crime, and the main sentence that the convict must serve, the date when it begins to run, the day it lapses, the place where it must be served and the accessory punishments, or any security measures that may be appropriate to order in substitution of the sentence; the amount of civil reparation, the person who shall collect it and those obligated to pay it, citing the articles of the Criminal Code that may be applicable.” 32 Annex 12. Administrative Matter No. 170-98, Report of November 2, 1998 signed by Supreme Court Justices José Bacigalupo Hurtado and Ismael Paredes Lozano. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 6, 2001.