81 o) “States have a valid possibility of opting between the absolute exclusion of contaminated evidence and all evidence related to it, and the rule that allows the content to be assessed independently of the penalty to be imposed on the accused, and between the rule on weighing the different interests and the rule that allows the evidence collected in procedures carried out in good faith by the police authorities to be assessed freely”; p) The judgment handed down against the alleged victim used two complementary theories on the consequences of violations of the probative procedure: the “good faith theory” and the “theory of the independence of the consequences”; q) The “rule on the exclusion of evidence” refers exclusively to the prohibition to use in a judicial proceeding “evidence obtain in direct violation of the fundamental human rights of a person. It does not presume to exclude all evidence without distinction. It does not consider violations of the rule of competence to be a cause for excluding material that has previously been gathered, nor does it consider that the annulment of a proceeding should immediately result in an absolute prohibition to re-use the evidence that was gathered in order to open it”; r) There are no reasons to conclude that the rules established by the Convention and by the Court’s case law make it obligatory “to invalidate all the evidence obtained by the police under certain conditions, without first differentiating between those procedures that are defective owing to human rights violations and the others that are not defective for the same reasons”; s) The defect of a “nullity per se” of the case records, based on an alleged nullity owing to context, has no basis in the Convention, not even in the theory of “the fruit of the forbidden tree”; t) “There is no basis for affirming that [Lori] Berenson […] was convicted as a result of the transferred evidence.” The civil court “processed more than 100 pieces of evidence during the preliminary investigation, which is the judicial investigation; and during the trial, which is the adversarial procedure. The judge’s opinion was based on these 100 pieces of evidence, which included testimonies, confrontations, expert reports, inspection by experts and discussion with experts, and the examination of documents”; u) The sentence handed down against the alleged victim “[was] supported by the evidence processed and incorporated into the proceeding, and […] the evidence [was] only used after it had been discussed and incorporated during the trial”; v) From the records of the sessions of the ordinary oral proceeding it can be seen that “abundant evidence” was produced at this stage of the proceeding, complying with the principles and procedural guarantees established in the Peruvian Constitution; w) The invalidity of the records of the military proceeding cannot affect the possibility of cross-examining the individuals who testified before the military authorities again, or again discussing the physical and documentary evidence that they included initially;