35 f) since the State was responsible for the victims and their relatives, the proceedings in the military exclusive court for the clarification of the facts, identification of bodies, and administration of justice, and since no diligent investigation of the facts was carried out, they were denied the access to an effective recourse; and g) on July 17, 1987 the Sixth Correctional Tribunal of Lima decided that Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera were "innocent, solving the case and set them immediately free". Said decision was inefficient because they were missing. 112. On the other hand, the State stated that: a) the argument lacks evidentiary basis regarding the fact that the detainees have been denied the access to an attorney and that they have been forced to expressly give up this right. Clearly, in writing, in this case those concerned disregarded such a possibility. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to lessen the value of said event; b) in this case, the defendants were declared not guilty on the grounds of the in dubio pro reo principle, which is not the equivalent of a non guilty verdict; c) the military justice was in charge of the investigations leading to the determination of responsibilities in the reviewed events. This process had publicity and respected the corresponding guarantees. * * 113. * Article 8(1) of the American Convention states 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. 114. Article 25(1) of American Convention states that: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 115. The Court shall first examine the argument of the Commission regarding the military process to investigate the facts and determine the probable liable parties of actions related to the subduing of the riots in El Frontón. Regarding this process, the Commission stated that military tribunals were in open contradiction with autonomy and impartiality principles. 116. The Court has had the opportunity to refer to the military jurisdiction and has stated that it