annulled was valid based on the grounds set out in the appeal. Its nullity was merely the result of the composition of the court and this was decided on May 20, 2003, by the National Counter-terrorism Chamber. And, at that same moment, the nullity of the first instance judgment was decreed for the same reasons because the error was identical. Thus, in this regard, the nullity of the court’s judgment did not result in the final nature of the judgment of first instance, because the latter was also annulled and what has been annulled cannot become final. The nullity was decided in the same decision and caused identical effects for both rulings. 388 267. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, the acquittal decided in favor of Ms. J. did not become final under domestic law. The term “non-appealable judgment” contained in the American Convention does not always coincide with its definition in domestic law. In particular, it has been pointed out that the principle of non bis in idem is not absolute and admits exceptions so as not to 389 and it is not applicable when the prevent the investigation of gross human rights violations, acquittal “responded to the purpose of removing the accused from his criminal responsibility” or 390 or “there was no real intention of subjecting the person responsible to the action of justice,” when the “non-appealable judgment” was delivered in contravention of the guarantees of 391 established in Article 8(1) of the Convention. This competence, independence and impartiality Court notes that, although both expert opinions provided to the case file indicated that the acquittal handed down in favor of Ms. J. was not final under domestic law, neither of the expert opinions took into account two fundamental aspects of the representative’s arguments regarding the violation of non bis in idem, namely, that: (i) the nullity decreed in 2003 was limited to those prosecuted and convicted, and not to those acquitted, even when the acquittal had been handed down by a “faceless” court, and (ii) in addition to having been decided by “faceless” judges, the 1993 judgment of nullity suffered from additional defects, such as the absence of reasoning. This Court must determine whether these elements are sufficient to consider that the acquittal handed down in favor of Ms. J. should be considered non-appealable for the purposes of Article 8(4) of the Convention. 268. In this regard, the Court recalls that the annulment established in Legislative Decree No. 926 was limited “to those who have been convicted and for the acts for which they were convicted, as well as to those who are being prosecuted and are absent and in contempt of court, and for the acts that are the substance of the indictment.” 392 In this regard, the Court takes note that Federico Javier Llaque Moya, Counter-terrorism Prosecutor, explained during the hearing in this case that the acquittals handed down by the “faceless “judges were not annulled “because even in cases in which the standards of due process were not met, following an acquittal, the case with a final judgment could not be dismissed.” 393 Consequently, if the 1993 acquittal had been non-appealable, the general annulment decreed in 2003 for all the trials processed by secret judges and agents of justice would not have been admissible. 269. 388 Regarding the defects in the judgment of the “faceless” Supreme Court of Justice, the Affidavit prepared by the expert witness José María Asencio Mellado on May 6, 2013 (merits report, folio 1106). 389 See, inter alia, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 319; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 327, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 196. 390 See, inter alia, Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 154; Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 98; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, paras. 131 and 132, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 195. 391 See, inter alia, Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 153; Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 115 to 131, 143 and seventh operative paragraph, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, paras. 195 and 197. 392 3320). 393 Legislative Decree No. 926 of February 19, 2003, article 2 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 19, folio Testimony of Federico Javier Llaque Moya during the public hearing of this case. 79