173. In the instant case, Ms. J. was detained on April 13, 1992, following which criminal proceedings were opened against her, as a result of which she was acquitted in June 1993. However, this acquittal was annulled in December 1993 due to a supposed “erroneous assessment of the facts and an inadequate review of the evidence provided.” Owing to this decision, the proceedings were retrogressed in such a way that a new trial was held. At that time, Ms. J. was no longer in Peru, so that in the subsequent decisions taken in relation to the other accused in the same case file, the proceedings against her were held in reserve (supra para. 106). Starting in 2003, a series of reforms were made to Peru’s counter-terrorism laws on the basis on which all the proceedings in the trial of Ms. J. that had been carried out by ‘secret’ judges or prosecutors were declared null and void and, consequently, the proceedings were retrogressed to the moment of the issue of the indictment by the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service. Currently, the holding of an oral hearing is pending in the proceedings (supra paras. 107 and 113). For the purposes of this Judgment, the Court will refer to the judicial proceedings prior to the 2003 amendments to the terrorist legislation as the “first stage of the proceedings” (supra paras. 74 and 75) and the judicial proceedings after 2003 as the “second stage of the proceedings.” 174. However, before examining the alleged violations of Article 8 of the Convention, this Court notes that the State has argued that, owing to the judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, and to Legislative Decree No. 926, the National Counter-terrorism Chamber issued its decision of May 20, 2003, in which it declared that all the previous proceedings with regard to Ms. J. were null and void so that “[a]ll the errors that may have been committed in the criminal proceedings before the faceless courts were duly redressed.” According to the State, the Court should not rule on these aspects, because all the jurisprudential and legal measures have already been taken to guarantee the right to due process, so that there is no point in the Court ruling on the proceedings held before faceless judges, the absence of publicity, and the failure to provide the grounds for the judgments in the proceedings against Ms. J., because the State has modified this procedural framework in its domestic legislation. The State argued that it saw no reason for the Court to rule on this issue again. 175. In this regard, the Court notes that, on previous occasions, it has examined the reforms adopted by the State as of 2003. 287 However, the Court observes that several of the alleged violations in this case occurred before the said reforms. Therefore, as it has in other cases, 288 the Court must rule on the said violations, notwithstanding the effect that the subsequent reforms could have on the reparations that are found to be pertinent in this case. The Court emphasizes that already in other cases against Peru, it has ruled on facts and violations that took place before the reforms referred to by the State, after the said reforms had entered into force. 289 Consequently, even though the proceedings opened against Ms. J. were held in the context of a legislation most of which is no longer in force, this does not prevent the Court from ruling on the alleged violations that may have occurred before the said reforms in application of those laws. 176. Based on the arguments of the parties and of the Commission, in this section the Court will analyze first (B.1) the alleged violations of due process related to the first stage of the proceedings, 287 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 73.36; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 223 to 225; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, para. 135; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, considering paragraph 12; Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of July 1, 2011, considering paragraph 34, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of June 20, 2012, considering paragraph 8. 288 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 134; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No 151, para. 102; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, footnote 40, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 195. 289 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 83; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 223 to 225; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, para. 135. 55