78 testified in the military jurisdiction.” This judge was dismissed from the judiciary after he had completed the pre-trial stage of the case; h) The President of the Chamber, Judge Marcos Ibazeta, who presided the panel of three judges in the National Terrorism Chamber that convicted Lori Berenson, revealed to the media “his lack of independence and impartiality two years before he presided this trial,” by criticizing the InterAmerican Commission and the petitioners in this case; and, for this reason, the defense lawyers raised an objection to him; i) Prosecutor Cavagnaro took part in the trial in the military jurisdiction and in the pre-trial investigation for the civil trial in the National Terrorism Chamber; j) Within 16 months of the sentencing of Lori Berenson, “all except one of the eight individuals in key posts such as judges, prosecutors and State attorneys in Lori Berenson’s civil trial were dismissed”; k) During the first months of the ordinary proceeding, from September 8, 2000, to January 19, 2001, which corresponded to the pre-trial investigation, Lori Berenson’s lawyer did not have sufficient time to consult her and prepare her defense. “In general, they were only allowed to meet for less than 30 minutes a week.” Supreme Decree 003-2001 of January 20, 2001, of the Ministry of Justice, established that defendants had an unrestricted right to meet with their defense lawyers. However, opportunities to consult freely with the defense lawyer “continued to be inadequate” during the stage of the public hearing of the trial before the National Terrorism Chamber; l) The alleged victim had the minimum opportunity (less than an hour), to consult with her lawyer before making an official statement for 14 hours, on September 13, 14 and 15, 2000; m) The alleged victim’s lawyer was only given two hours to examine “more than 2,000 pages of transcripts corresponding to the military case file.” Even though, from this time on, the alleged victim’s defense lawyer was present in the pre-trial investigation, Lori Berenson “was not present when the witnesses testified. […S]he was not available to her defense lawyer to help him […] by providing him with information he could not have obtained in any other way”; n) The alleged victim and her defense lawyer learned of the charges arising from the pre-trial investigation on March 16, 2001, “four days before the date of the first hearing, and the time was insufficient for the defense lawyer to make the necessary consultations and prepare himself for the new charges that had been filed”; o) The examining judge and the prosecutor “examined the key witnesses in the absence of [the alleged victim] and before the services of a lawyer could be obtained”; p) There was never equality with regard to access to key documents, almost all of them from the military trial, “which could only be inspected by [the alleged victim’s] defense lawyer personally in the court’s offices,