Higher Court of Lima ruled in that decision. 323 This Court does not consider that a provision of this type is incompatible per se with the guarantee of the right to defend oneself, the presumption of innocence or any other provision of the American Convention. Although, in certain cases, the application of this provision could be disproportionate, the Court finds that this is a situation that must be examined taking into account the particular circumstances of the specific case. The evidence provided in the instant case does not reveal that Ms. J. or her lawyer filed any type of preliminary question, request for a preliminary ruling or objection that was only ruled on in the judgment on merits by the court hearing the case. 324 213. In this regard, the Court recalls that the purpose of its contentious jurisdiction is not to review domestic laws in abstract, but must be exercised to hear specific cases where it is alleged that an act of the State, executed against individuals, violated the provisions of the Convention. 325 In the instant case neither the Commission nor the representative indicated how the provision established in article 13(a) of Decree 25,475 had disproportionately impaired Ms. J.’s right to defend herself. Consequently, the Court does not find that this legal restriction represented a violation of this right in the instant case. e. Alleged coercion that Ms. J. received while she was detained, presumably to make her plead guilty (alleged violation of Article 8(2)(g) of the Convention) 214. In order to analyze this allegation, the Court must determine whether the coercion and threats, which the representative alleged occurred in the DINCOTE, really happened, and this determination will be made in the chapter on the alleged violations of Ms. J.’s personal integrity (infra paras. 372 to 374). Once it has made the pertinent determination, the Court will rule on the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(g) of the Convention in relation to the presumed coercion and threats, as appropriate. f. Conclusion regarding the right to defend oneself 215. Based on all the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the State violated paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Article 8(2) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, because Ms. J. was not notified formally or informed adequately of the reasons for her detention and of the acts that she was accused of, and also due to the legal restrictions that prevented her from questioning the witnesses who intervened in the elaboration of the police attestation on which the charges against her were based. Moreover, the absence of a formal detailed notification in writing of the charges against her also constituted a violation of Article 7(4) of the Convention. B.1.3) Right to a public proceeding i. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 323 Cf. Judgment of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of June 18, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 48, folios 3770 a 3785). 324 Cf. Record of the hearing of May 19, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 19, folios 4753 to 4756); record of the hearing of June 2, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 20, folios 4758 to 4767); record of the hearing of June 7, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 21, folios 4769 to 4784), and record of the hearing of June 9, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 22, folios 4786 to 4796), and judgment of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of June 18, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 48, folios 3770 to 3785). 325 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 50, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 162. 64