9 The medical act […] is not only an essentially legal act, but it is a duty for a doctor to provide; and for imposing on doctors the obligation to report the possible illegal behavior of his/her patients, based on the information obtained in the exercise of their profession.”7 20. The Court has pointed out that it has no jurisdiction to determine the innocence or guiltiness of a person.8 In the present case, taking into account that declared by the Tribunal in its Judgment, it follows to determine if there was a new criminalization of the medical act in the second process followed against the victim. 21. The Court observed that in the second procedure, the judgment issued by the National Chamber of Terrorism and the Supreme Court established that the guiltiness of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, derived from the declarations rendered in several moments by the same three witnesses whose declarations based the conviction in the first procedure. (Elisa Mantilla9, Jacqueline Aroni Apcho y la testigo de clave A22300000110). The Tribunal notes that the Supreme Court quotes two declarations of Mrs. Aroni against Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, which were rendered before a faceless military prosecutor.11 Likewise the Tribunal notes that such witness retracted in later declarations. However, in order to reach the conviction of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, only the first declarations of Mrs. Aroni were taken into account, and not her retraction, in spite of the allegations of Likewise the Tribunal notes that such witness retracted in later declarations. However, in order to reach the conviction of Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, only the first declarations of Mrs. Aroni were taken into account, and not her retraction, in spite of the allegations of the 7 Cf. Case De la Cruz Flores, supra note 5, par. 102. Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July, 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, par. 134; Case González et al. (¨Cotton Filed¨) V. México. Preliminary exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 18, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, par. 41 9 Statement of Elisa Mabel Mantilla Moreno on September 7, 1995 (“fojas” 537-547, equivalent to pages 729-739, Book VI, Supervision of Compliance with Judgment), before the representative of the 14 Criminal Prosecution of the Province of Lima, with her defense attorney and before a representative of the DIVICOTEIV-DINCOTE; Second Extension of the Statement of Elisa Mabel Mantilla Moreno of September 11, 1995, before a representative of the 14 Criminal Prosecution of the Province of Lima, with her defense attorney and before a representative of the DIVICOTE-IV-DINCOTE; (“fojas” 555-557, equivalent to pages 747-749, Book VI, Supervision of Compliance with Judgment); Continuation of the Instruction of Elisa Mabel Mantilla Moreno, of September 22, 1995 (“fojas” 1007 to1013, equivalent to pages 693-704, Book VI, Supervision of Compliance with Judgment), before the representative of the Public Ministry, a Criminal Judge and her defense attorney. In its Judgment, the Supreme Court mentions that, in the “foja” 3248 of the internal penal file, there is proof of a ratification of Mrs. Mantilla, “while being confronted with the accused De La Cruz Flores” in which “it can be appreciated that [Mrs. Mantilla] is emphatic in recognizing the accused as [comrade] Eliana, it shall be précised that in such procedure she states that she does not recognize César David Rodríguez Rodríguez –and not the accused as she alleges-.“ Regarding this last piece of evidence, the Court observes that such confrontation between Mrs. De La Cruz and the witness against her was not submitted by the illustrious State in its report presented by request of the Tribunal when supervising the compliance with this Judgment (supra Having Seen 9 and 10), however, in the merits file of the present case, there is a confrontation that would correspond to such piece of evidence. Indeed, during the Merits trial, a procedure of confrontation Mrs. Mantilla and César David Rodríguez was presented to the Tribunal, that belongs to the aforementioned “foja” 3248 of the file of the internal criminal procedure. Such document is partially unreadable, however, in its readable components; it does not mention Mrs. De La Cruz. Likewise, in the file of Supervision of Compliance, the Court observes that the first instance judgment issued by the National Chamber of Terrorism, refers to a “procedure of confrontation carried out between Mabel Mantilla Moreno and César David Rodríguez” (file of Supervision of Compliance with the Judgment, Book V, page 179) that would be in the “foja” 3248 that the Supreme Court links with the supposed confrontation between Mrs. Mantilla and Mrs. De La Cruz. 10 Extention of the Internal Act of Declaration Key No. A2230000001 of August 17,1993 (“fojas” 649663, equivalent to pages 714-728, Book VI, Supervision of Compliance with Judgment), in which the Province Deputy Prosecutor of the 43rd. Prosecution of the Province of Lima and a representative of DIVICOTE-IVDINCOTE sign together. 11 The Supreme Court refers to two “police statements” of Mrs Aroni. According to the documents submitted by the State, the Tribunal notes that such declarations refer to: i) the statement of Jacqueline Aroni Apcho carried out on September 11, 1995, before a Navy Special Prosecutor -identified with key JE-500-403-, an appointed attorney and having as instructor a member of the National Police affiliated to the DIVICOTE-IVDINCOTE (pages 648-681, Book VI, Supervision of Compliance with Judgment) and ii) the extensive statement of September 27, 1995, before the same key identified Prosecutor, the same appointed attorney and the same instructor affiliated to the DINCOTE (pages 682-692, Book VI, Supervision of Compliance with Judgment). 8