64 218. All litigation is a series of juridical proceedings that are chronologically, logically and teleologically interlinked. Some underpin or are the foundation of those that follow, and all are instituted for one ultimate purpose: to settle a difference by means of a judgment. Each kind of juridical proceeding has its own procedures, governed by rules that determine their institution and their effects. Finally, every proceeding must conform to the rules that require that it be instituted and that make the proceeding legal, a condition sine qua non for the proceeding to have legal effects. The validity of each juridical proceeding influences the validity of the whole, since each one is built upon the one that preceded it, and will in turn be the foundation of the one that follows it. That sequence of juridical proceedings culminates in the judgment that settles the controversy and establishes the legal truth with the authority of res judicata. 219. If the proceedings upon which the judgment rests have serious defects that strip them of the efficacy they must have under normal circumstances, then the judgment will not stand. It will not have the necessary underpinning, which is litigation conducted by law. The concept of nullification of a proceeding is a familiar one. With it, certain acts are invalidated and any proceedings that followed the proceeding in which the violation that caused the invalidation occurred, are repeated. This, in turn, means that a new judgment is handed down. The legitimacy of the judgment rests upon the legitimacy of the process. 220. It is important to distinguish the hypothetical under examination here from the hypothetical in which a court misapplies the law, incorrectly weighs the evidence, or does not adequately set forth the reasons or grounds for the judgment it hands down. In such cases, the judgment is valid and may ultimately hold up even if it is unfair or incorrect. Such judgments are built upon valid proceedings conducted in accordance with the law. They stand, even though they may contain errors in the understanding and application of the law. The same cannot be said of a judgment that lacks the proper procedural underpinnings, because such a judgment is built upon a foundation that cannot endure. 221. In the instant case, there are numerous violations of the American Convention, starting with the DINCOTE investigation and continuing through the proceedings in the military courts. This has been described, proven and settled in the preceding chapters of this judgment. In effect, the proceeding was conducted before a jurisdictional body that cannot be considered a “tribunal previously established by law” with jurisdiction over acts and defendants such as those in the case that concerns us: the judges and prosecutors in that proceeding were “faceless”; the defendants did not have defense counsel of their choosing in the period after they were taken into custody, and the defense attorneys who ultimately assisted them were not given an opportunity to confer with their clients in private, to have advance knowledge of the case, to bring forth evidence for the defense, to refute the prosecution’s evidence, and to adequately prepare their case. Clearly, the proceedings in this case did not fulfill the minimum requirements of “due process of law”, which is the very essence of the judicial guarantees established under the Convention. Failure to fulfill the requirements of due process renders the proceedings invalid. With that, the judgment is automatically invalid, as it does not meet the requirements for it to stand and have the effects that normally follow from an act of this nature. It is up to the State, then, within a reasonable time period, to order a new trial that ab initio satisfies the requirements of due process of law, is heard by a tribunal previously established by law (the regular courts), with full guarantees of a hearing and defense for the accused. The Court is not ordering their provisional