89 formality. It cannot adequately.253 be maintained that the alleged victim was defended 168. From the above, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 8(2)(b) 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(d) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Lori Berenson, in the proceeding in the military jurisdiction. b) Criminal proceeding in the ordinary jurisdiction b(1) Right to defense 169. The records before this Court concerning the trial in the civil jurisdiction, allow it to affirm that, during this stage, the alleged victim had the necessary means to prepare a defense with the intervention of a lawyer who could exercise his role according to the requirements of an adequate criminal defense. 170. Looking at the proceeding as a whole, it can be seen that the alleged victim was heard, as indicated, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, as corresponded to her case (supra para. 88(58)); she had access to a defense lawyer throughout the proceedings; the latter could crossexamine the witnesses during the pre-trial investigation and during the hearings of the oral proceeding, which was public, and could also provide evidence. The defense lawyer was able to raise objections and carry out confrontations, and he was able to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court. b(2) Evidence in the civil trial 171. Taking into account the characteristics of the military trial, about which this Court has already ruled, and also the arguments of the alleged victim’s defense lawyers concerning the ‘allegedly unlawful origin of the evidence adduced’ and the ‘unconstitutional nature of the legislative framework in force’, this Court will only refer to the trial held directly before the civil court. 172. During the pre-trial investigation stage in the ordinary jurisdiction, procedures such as the following were carried out (supra para. 88(50)): testimonial statements of Lori Berenson and 30 other individuals; confrontation procedures; visual inspection; expert reports; ratification of expert reports; request for documentary evidence from different public and private entities, and incorporation of this evidence. Also, during the oral proceeding, the following probative procedures were carried out (supra para. 88(58)): testimonial statements, including that of Lori Berenson; confrontations; documentary evidence was obtained; expert reports; ratification of expert reports; exhibition and transcript of videos; “listing and examining of probative evidence.” The procedures described above were designed to prove the facts on which the charges against Lori Berenson were founded in the trial against her in the ordinary jurisdiction. 173. On June 20, 2001, the National Terrorism Chamber issued a judgment (supra para. 88(69) convicting Lori Berenson. On July 3, 2001, her defense lawyer filed an appeal for annulment (supra para. 88(70)). On February 13, 2002, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru rejected the appeal for annulment of the judgment delivered 253 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 127; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 148.