401. In its Orders in those cases, the Court found that Peru had adopted measures aimed at rescinding some domestic norms that were contrary to the Convention by annulment, reform or a new interpretation. These reforms took into account, inter alia: (i) the infringement of the guarantee of an ordinary judge by the use of “faceless” judges; (ii) the questioning of the presumption of innocence by opening the preliminary investigation with an arrest warrant; (iii) the prohibition to recuse judges, and (iv) the violation of the right to file an application for habeas corpus. In this regard, the Court added that some norms of a legal nature had been issued in this regard, the content of which was designed to comply with some standards of international human rights law. 565 402. In the above-mentioned cases, due to the inexistence of a specific and actual dispute between the parties with regard to the scope of the reforms ordered, the Court proceeded to terminate the monitoring of compliance with the measure of reparation concerning the obligation to adapt domestic law to the standards of the American Convention. 566 The Court emphasized that, even though some aspects of the counter-terrorism laws had not been examined in those Orders, this was not an obstacle to their future analysis in the context of other contentious cases. 567 403. Consequently, the Court will not rule on the provisions specifically analyzed in the Orders on monitoring compliance in the cases of Castillo Petruzzi, Loayza Tamayo and Lori Berenson Mejía. Furthermore, it will not rule on the provision relating to the obligation to hold the trial in private hearings established in Article 13(f) of Decree-Law 25,475, because Legislative Decree No. 922 establishes the public nature of the oral hearing for offenses relating to terrorism, save in exceptional cases. 568 According to information provided by the State, this decree provides “the current legal framework for terrorism trials.” C.3.1) The legal restrictions that prevent offering as witnesses those who intervened in the elaboration of the police attestation 404. The Court considered that Article 13(c) of Decree-Law No. 25,475 applicable to the proceedings against Ms. J., prevented her from exercising the right to question the witnesses who had intervened in the elaboration of the police attestation (supra paras. 208 to 210), in violation of her right to defend herself. The Court notes that, when analyzing this provision, the Constitutional Court found that the impossibility of calling as witnesses those who intervened in the police attestation was not unconstitutional, because it was a reasonable measure to protect the rights of those who had intervened in the police investigation. In addition, according to the Constitutional Court, this restriction did not affect the possibility of offering and taking other pertinent probative measures, because the police attestation is just one more probative element and does not have the status of conclusive proof; furthermore, it is not prohibited to question the content of the police Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 16. 565 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraphs 12, 13, 15, 18 and 19, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 17. 566 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 25; Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 34, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 34. 567 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 25; Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 34, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra, considering paragraph 21. 568 Cf. Legislative Decree No. 922 of February 11, 2003, article 12 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 15, folios 3301 and 3302). 118