76 reasoning or the mental process of the judge by which he reached his conviction about the facts has to transcend the mind of the judge and be clearly expressed in the judgment, so that the defendant may know the grounds for his conviction and can appeal against it, and so that the superior court that hears the appeal or other remedies against the judgment may also know them”; and m) Article 139(5) of the Peruvian Constitution establishes the right to “written grounds for judicial decisions” as does Article 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Constitutional Court has ruled similarly. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victim 130. In relation to Article 8 of the Convention, the representatives of the alleged victim argued that: 130(1) Regarding the trial before the military court a) The anti-terrorist legislation tended to “over-criminalize,” “overpenalize,” and “politicize” proceedings; b) Article 12(a) of Decree Law 25,475 granted the police powers of investigation in a criminal trial; “it establishe[d] that [the police could] intervene without any of the restrictions established in their institutional regulations.” This Article remained in force despite the judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003; c) In the trial before the military court, there were “unlawful sources of evidence.” The alleged victim was detained “merely due to suspicion,” without an arrest warrant or being caught in flagrante delicto, and she was taken to the building located “in La Molina where a police raid was carried out, without her detention [being] recorded, without being notified of the reason for her detention.” The police detention lasted for more than 40 days, even though the Peruvian Constitution establishes a maximum of 15 calendar days; d) The alleged victim was not permitted due confidentiality with her defense lawyer. He was not present during the “preliminary pre-trial interrogations”; e) Based on the special appeal for review of res judicata, the Supreme Council of Military Justice annulled the judgment of January 30, 1996, owing to an “evident error” which needed to be corrected, citing new evidence that “did not support the charge of leadership.” From the point of view of the facts, the decision of the Supreme Council of Military Justice “was an acquittal”; f) The Supreme Council of Military Justice based its decision on lack of competence and not on an “acquittal” of the crime, “to avoid the consequences of violating the provisions of Article 8(4) of the Convention”; and g) The alleged victim was tried in a civil court, “for the second time for the same facts, after having been acquitted by the Supreme Council of