88 163. In this regard, the Court considers that, there are elements in the body of evidence before the Court, which prove that the right to presumption of innocence was respected in the processing of the proceeding in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, in the pre-trial investigation and during the oral proceeding. 164. Consequently, this Court considers that it has not been proven that the State violated Article 8(2) of the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victim in relation to the trial against her in the ordinary jurisdiction. * * * Adequate time and means for the preparation of the defense 165. Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes In this regard that: 2. […]. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: [...] b. prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; c. adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; d. the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; a) Criminal proceeding in the military jurisdiction 166. Principle No. 8 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers concerning special safeguards in criminal cases, which establishes the standards for the adequate exercise of the defense in these cases, stipulates that: All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of law enforcement officials.252 167. The restriction of the task of the alleged victim’s defense lawyer and the limited possibility of presenting evidence for the defense during the trial in the military jurisdiction has been demonstrated in this case (supra para. 88(27)). Indeed, the alleged victim was not informed fully and opportunely of the charges against her; the free and confidential communication between Lori Berenson and her defense lawyer was obstructed; the judges responsible for the proceedings for treason were unidentified or “faceless” officials, so it was not possible for Lori Berenson and her lawyer to know whether there were grounds for raising objections to them and to be able to prepare an adequate defense; and the alleged victim’s lawyer only had access to the file the day before the delivery of the first-instance judgment. Consequently, the presence and action of the defense lawyer was a mere 252 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 139; and Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in La Havana (Cuba) from August 2, to September 7, 1990.