46 result of “evidence taken at trial, but rather expanded police investigation reports that the accused has not seen.” The proceedings conducted in the case against the alleged victims were based entirely on the police investigation report produced by DINCOTE, an organ answerable to the executive branch and “not the typical investigative police force.” That document had to serve as the charge, because “it is not proof but rather facts that have to be proven.” In order for police investigation work to constitute evidence, “the police must be intervening in the inquiry strictly for precautionary reasons, in cases of urgency or necessity, on orders of the judicial authority.” This does not appear to have happened in the instant case, except in the case of the medical tests done on the alleged victims; 137. e) it is a principle of procedural law that “any evidence used to argue the guilt of the accused in a case must be tendered by an organ other than the court” and the latter must exhibit the evidence so that the defense has an opportunity to state its position. Moreover, the investigative work of the preliminary phase is quite apart from the evidencegathering and fact-finding done during the second phase [trial].” The verdict is to be based entirely on evidence produced at trial; f) Mr. Astorga Valdez’ conviction was based on testimony introduced during proceedings conducted by the court of third and final instance. The introduction of new evidence at this late stage dealt a lethal blow to his case and was a “gross infringement of his guarantees that left him with no means of self-defense.” Moreover, under Article 8 of the Convention, a higher court must review a verdict of conviction; g) the defense attorneys were unable to confer with their clients until after the latter had made their preliminary statements. Even then, military were present, rattling their weapons, close enough to listen in on the attorney/client conversations; h) from the situations described here it is obvious that the defense was denied the minimum guarantees and ended up becoming “a mere spectator to the proceedings.” Arguments of the State: a) the defense lawyers had the opportunity to put on whatever defense they deemed appropriate; the alleged victims “were tried in proceedings that scrupulously complied with the procedural guarantees established under Peruvian law, especially those relating to due process and the right of defense.” The attorneys participated “actively in all the proceedings conducted throughout the process, advising their clients when they made their statements to the police and in the presence of the officers of the court. They filed briefs to support their arguments and presented oral arguments before the competent courts;” b) according to the domestic court records, the identity of neither the prosecutor for the first stages of the inquiry nor of the witnesses was kept secret; and