5 Second, it is impossible to make this distinction in this case, given the way in which a criminal judgment is structured in Peru, which does not indicate specifically the evidence used to conclude which facts have been proved and which have not. XXV. Consequently, I consider that the State violated Article 8(2) of the American Convention by allowing evidence to be introduced into the trial before the civil court that was not valid, because it did not comply with even the minimum requirements of this provision; and that it should be declared that, since the second trial against Ms. Berenson was tainted by a substantial defect concerning due process of law, the judgment is not valid and there is no justification for Ms. Berenson’s imprisonment. The reparation should have been Ms. Berenson’s liberation. XXVI. Another point relating to Article 8 of the Convention is the existence in Decree Law No. 25,475 of article 13(c), which prevented the police agents who had issued the police investigation report being called on to testify. This provision directly violates the provision in Article 8(f) of the Convention. During the hearing on arguments, the State’s representative indicated that “in his opinion,” this was not applicable in practice. It is possible to suppose that in the trial in the civil court, Ms. Berenson’s defense lawyers could have called on those agents and that this petition would have been admitted by the National Chamber. Indeed, the Prosecutor called on some of those agents, as is clear from paragraph 88(51) of this judgment; and we can suppose that, if the Prosecutor could make this petition, the defense lawyers could also have done so. But, it is also possible that the defense lawyers might have considered that, since they did not have the right to call on these agents to testify according to the provisions of article 13, there was no point in making the request. There is nothing in the case that allows us to reach one or other conclusion, so that I cannot agree with paragraph 187 of this judgment. XXVII. Without detriment to this, and even supposing that not calling on those agents to testify was due to an omission on the part of the defense lawyers, I consider that the Court should have ruled in the sense that the applicable norm in this case was incompatible with Article 8(f) of the American Convention. REGARDING REPARATIONS XXVIII. Since the Court has decided that due process of law was not violated in the trial against Ms. Berenson in the civil court, the reparations it orders are only related to the proceedings before the military court and the conditions for part of the period during which she was detained. On this basis, I do not disagree with the reparations ordered by the Court, but I consider that they are insufficient. XXIX. Ms. Berenson was detained on November 30, 1995, and, as of that time, a proceeding that violated Article 8 of the American Convention commenced, culminating in life imprisonment. The proceeding was only reverted on August 18, 2000, when the Supreme Council of Military Justice annulled the judgment and Lori Berenson’s conviction, and waived the competence of the military