83 a whole, as well as the way evidence was incorporated, were in accordance with the Convention.237 134. Given the particularities of the case and the nature of the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim, as well as the arguments presented by the State, the Court will proceed to examine all the domestic judicial proceedings during the military criminal trial and in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, to establish whether those proceedings were in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention. 135. The Commission and the representatives argued that, during the trial held in the exclusive military jurisdiction, the State violated the following rights and guarantees of due process of law established in the American Convention: an independent and impartial tribunal (Article 8(1)); presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)); defense (Article 8(2)(b), (c) and (d); examination of witnesses present in the court (Article 8(2)(f); the right to appeal the judgment to a higher judge or court (Article 8(2)(h); the right not to be subjected to a new trial for the same cause (Article 8(4)); and a public proceeding (Article 8(5)). 136. The Commission and the representatives argued that during the processing of the trial in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, evidence was used that had been gathered during the processing of the military trial, and that the sentence convicting Lori Berenson in the ordinary jurisdiction lacked grounds, because the probative evidence on which the decision was based was not revealed, and there was no assessment of the weight granted to it. 137. The State declared that “it did not submit to the Court the matter arising from the trial of Lori Berenson Mejía by the military jurisdiction for aggravated terrorism[, because] the military jurisdiction’s lack of competence to try [Ms.] Berenson Mejía [had already been declared] and the proceeding had been transferred to the ordinary jurisdiction.” Without detriment to the foregoing, the Commission and the representatives submitted possible violations to Article 8 of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim during the military proceeding; the Court will therefore refer to these facts. * * * A competent, independent and impartial judge 138. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 237 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sanchez, supra note 210, para. 120; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 210, para. 189; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222.