2 presence of violations to Article 25 (“Judicial Protection”) in 40 cases. In my concept, one and the other imply a violation of the due process –in ample and adequate sense: the most convenient one for the judicial protection of the human being --, even though they may and must be analyzed separately. On the other hand, it is necessary to remember that other precepts of the Convention protect matters that may be classified within the scope of the due process: for example, violation of the right to life (Article 4, in what refers to the extraordinary means available for challenging the death penalty), of the right to integrity (Article 5, in what refers to the illicit coercion over detained individuals) and the right to liberty (7, in that concerning the rules of detention and judicial control over the same). 5. It is convenient to mention that the experience of other national and international jurisdictions runs in the same direction, as has been put in relevance by the experts in this field. In the European Court there is abundant presence of matters related with the due process, with great emphasis on criminal aspects. Oscar Schiappa-Pietra observes that Article 6º of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)—precept that establishes the main norms of the due process -- “is the one that has deserved the greater number of cases (before the European system for the protection of human rights), in comparison with all other rights acknowledged by the ECHR” (“Notes on the due process within the framework of the European regional system for the protection of human rights,” in Novak, Fabián, and Mantilla, Julissa, Las garantías del debido proceso. Materiales de enseñanza, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Center of International Studies/ Real Embassy of the Netherlands, Lima, 1996, p. 145). 6. Some national analysts point out the frequency of cases presented before the European Court regarding matters of the trial, as well as those known by the national jurisdiction as of Article 6º of the Convention of 1950, regarding the subject that we are currently dealing with (Cfr., only as an example, Dupré, Catherine, “France”, in Blackburn & Polakiewicz, Fundamental Rights in Europe. The ECHR and its Member States, 1950-2000. Oxford University Press, Great Britain, 2001, p. 325, and in what refers to Italy, with emphasis on the problems of the “reasonable time”, Meriggiola, Enzo, “Italy”, in idem, pages. 487-488 and 501. Regarding Spain, Guillermo Escobar Roca observes that Article 6 is the precept of the Convention most frequently invoked before the Constitutional Court of that country. Cfr. “Spain”, in idem, p. 817. The violations to the reasonable time and the right to defense are constantly invoked, in criminal procedural matters, before the European Court, as well as the problems that arise from the right to an independent and impartial tribunal. Cfr. Delmas-Marty, Mireille, “Introduction”, in Delmas-Marty (dir.), Procesos penales de Europa (Alemania, Inglaterra y País de Gales, Bélgica, Francia, Italia), translation Pablo Morenilla Allard, Ed. Eijus, Zaragoza (Spain), 2000, p. 33). 7. In what refers to the extremes of the due process –in ample sense, as I have mentioned -- covered by the Court’s jurisprudence, it is necessary to mention that it has already elaborated a useful jurisprudential doctrine on subjects such as: independent and impartial tribunal, competent tribunal (subjects that can both be attracted as elements or, even better, as prerequisites of the due process), military jurisdiction (chapter relevant to the previous matters), presumption of innocence, the right to equal protection, defense, the principle of contradiction, public nature of the process, arrest, preventive detention (conditions and characteristics), investigation, admissibility and assessment of the evidence, reasonable time (for the preventive detention and for the process), recourses, new process (res judicata and ne bis in