31 in his capacity as Military Attorney.103 However, such magistrate/attorney was not banned from hearing the cause nor did he accept the challenge against him. 104 His participation in the trial against Mr. Usón Ramírez, first as an accuser and then as a judge, raises serious doubts about his impartiality, not yet addressed by the State in a convincing manner (supra para. 106). Therefore, the Tribunal considers that the State violated the right of Mr. Usón Ramírez to be tried by an impartial tribunal, which is thus a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said Convention. B) Other arguments of the parties on the violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 120. This Court has indicated in its previous jurisprudence that, in cases regarding an incompetent judge or tribunal, it is unnecessary to rule on other aspects of the criminal proceeding that allegedly violate Article 8 of the Convention. 105 However, despite the fact that in the present case the military tribunals that tried Mr. Usón Ramírez were incompetent (supra para. 116), the Court observes that the Commission and the representatives referred to other aspects of the criminal proceedings that also violated Article 8(2) of the same instrument. 121. In this sense, the Commission alleged that “from May 22, 2004, to June 22, 2004, Mr. Usón and his attorneys were not able to access the case file of the investigation against him because it was decided that they should be ‘kept totally confidential’ so that […] they may not be ‘denatured, left unrecognizable, or distorted’ by [Mr. Usón Ramírez,] given that publicity would hinder the investigation and the purpose of the proceeding.’” Additionally, the Commission indicated that “the public hearings [in that proceeding] of October 6, 7, 8, and 11, 2004, were held behind closed doors,” despite that “Mr. Usón was being judged [for] comments made during a televized program […] regarding an event of public knowledge [and debate.] That is, for events “unrelated to confidential information of the Armed Forces.” Moreover, the Commission alleged that the lack of independence of the tribunals that saw Mr. Usón ’s case, was evinced by: a) “Military Prosecutors are designated by the President of the Republic,” and, in accordance with the Organic Code of Military Justice, the members of the lower instances of the military jurisdiction are chosen by the higher instances thereof, and, in the case of the Martial Court and the Supreme Court of Justice, from a list submitted by the Minister of Defense, making the military forum a “service or dependency of the executive branch”; b) “the judge in charge of the Military Control Tribunal of la Guaria that declared himself incompetent to hear [Mr. Usón´s case on the day of his detention] was dismissed from his charge that same day [without] any sort of 103 Cf. Order No. MD-SG-2004/222 of the Ministry of Defense on May 10, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 31, f. 1099); judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice on June 2, 2005, supra note 22, fs. 1494 to 1557, and cause No. CJPM-TM1ES-CCS-1734/06 of the First Military Tribunal of Execution of Judgments (case file of attachments to the answer of the petition, tomo II, attachment C, f. 5280). 104 Cf. Case file of appeal against the Magistrate Eladio Ramón Aponte Aponte on March 28, 2005 (case file de attachments to the answer of the petition, tomo VIII, fs. 7397 to 7402) and brief No. 122 of March 29, 2005, signed by Mr. Eladio Ramón Aponte Aponte in his official capacity as President of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (case file of attachments to the answer of the demand, tomo VIII, fs. 7404 a 7408). 105 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 115; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 106, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 145.