representative indicated that this ruling should not have legal effects because the identity of the judges was secret, and owing to the failure to provide the reasoning for the judgment, the alleged time-barred nature of its delivery, 394 and its illegality (because it had no basis in any of the specific causes established by law). 270. In this regard, the Court notes that the secret identity of the judges constituted a common defect of both courts (supra paras. 102 and 105). In addition, the Court recalls that it has concluded that the said ruling of the “faceless” Supreme Court lacked reasoning, in violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention (supra para. 229). Furthermore, since the reasoning for the said judgment is lacking, it is not possible to determine whether Ms. J. had the opportunity to be heard during the said nullity proceeding, through her defense counsel, or to exercise an adequate defense. In addition, the absence of reasoning does not permit the Court to determine the cause of nullity that was applied, pursuant to the presumptions established in the Peruvian Code of Criminal Procedures. 395 The Court has established that the reasoning shows the parties that they have been heard and, in those cases in which the decisions can be appealed, provides them with the possibility of contesting the decision and obtaining a fresh examination of the matter before the higher courts. 396 Nevertheless, the Court has no evidence that would permit it to conclude that the failure to provide the reasoning for the 1993 judgment of nullity would have the effect of rendering the acquittal delivered previously in favor of Ms. J. final and non-appealable. 271. Regarding the effects of the alleged statute of limitations on the ruling on the appeal for a declaration of nullity on the final nature of the acquittal, the Court notes that the representative used as grounds the interpretation of the Inter-American Commission in the case of Alan García v. Peru. In this regard, the Court notes that the decision mentioned by the representative is not applicable to this case. On that occasion, the Commission concluded that the appeal that had altered a final decision had been time-barred and this was what “re-opened a closed case, thereby violating the principle of res judicata.” 397 In the instant case, there is no evidence in the case file that the filing of the appeal for a declaration of nullity was subject to the statute of limitations. 398 In 394 The representative argued that “[a]ccording to article 131 of the consolidated amended text of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, Supreme Decree No 017-93-JUS (which was in force at the time), the processing of proceedings before the Supreme Court must ‘be decided in a non-extendible period of three calendar months at the most, notwithstanding explicit procedural norms that indicate a lesser time.” 395 In this regard, article 298 establishes: “[t]he Supreme Court shall declare nullity: 1. When serious irregularities or omissions have been incurred in the procedures or guarantees established by the Law of Criminal Procedure during the preliminary investigation or the trial; 2. If the investigating judge or the court that tries the case is not competent; 3. If anyone has been convicted of an offense that was not the subject of the investigation or the oral hearing or if an offense that appears in the complaint, the investigation or the charges has not been investigated or tried. Nullity shall not be declared in the case of procedural defects that can be rectified, or that do not affect the substance of the decision. Judges and courts are empowered to complete judicial decisions or rulings or to integrate accessory, incidental or subsidiary elements. The nullity of the proceedings shall have no further effects that revert the proceedings to the procedural stage at which the error was committed or produced, and the probative elements shall subsist that were not specifically affected. When the nullity of the oral hearing has been declared, the hearing shall be re-opened so that, in the said act, the defects or omissions that caused this can be rectified, or so that, if appropriate, the necessary evidence and procedures can be complemented and expanded.” 1941 Code of Criminal Procedures, article 298 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of August 14, 2013, folios 5156 and 5157). 396 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (First Contentious Administrative Court) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 78, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra, para. 118 397 IACHR, Case No. 11,006. Report No. 1/95, Case of Alan García v. Peru. Annual Report, 1994, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.88 Doc. 9 rev. (1995), February 7, 1995. 398 The judgment of June 18, 1993, that acquitted Ms. J. “ordered that, should [the said] judgment not be expressly appealed, the appeal for a declaration of nullity should be granted ex officio with regard to the acquittal. Judgment of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of June 18, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 48, folio 3785). Furthermore, although the date on which the appeals were filed does not appear in the case file, according to information in the case file, both the individuals convicted and the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service filed appeals for a declaration of nullity against the said decision, without any information having been provided that shows that the appeals were subject to the statute of limitations (supra para. 105). 80