34 110. Based the above-mentioned considerations, the Court concluded that the State violated dispositions of Articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera. XIV VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8(1) AND 25(1) THE RIGHT TO A HEARING WITH DUE GUARANTEES BY A COMPETENT, INDEPENDENT, AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL AND THE RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE RECOURSE. 111. Regarding the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, the Commission stated that: a) Article 8 of the Convention involved different rights and guarantees that have as their main purpose to protect the right of every person to a fair process and to make sure the State judicially ensures the rights. b) Gabriel Pablo Ugarte was denied the right to an attorney when was declaring before the police; c) military tribunals aware of the case acted "in open contradiction to the autonomy and impartial principles which must inform [to them] to comply with what it is stipulated in the Convention". Impartiality and independence of the tribunal are key topics of minimal guarantees of justice administration and Article 8 must always be interpreted in the widest terms, in compliance with the purpose and aim of the treaty. d) military tribunals are not independent, impartial, or competent bodies, because they belong "according to the Peruvian Organic Law of Military Justice [Executive Order No. 23.201] to the Ministry of Defense; that is, it is an special court subordinated to an agency of the Executive Branch". Judges in the military exclusive court are, similarly, members of the Armed Forces in active duty, (Articles 22 and 31 of Executive Order No. 23.201). Besides, it is not necessary to be an attorney to become a tribunal member of this court. Thus, it is logic to say that if the judicial post depends on the military rank or the status of active officer, decisions adopted by the judge or tribunal shall be affected by an interest incompatible with justice. This might imply that an officer could lack the needed autonomy and impartiality to investigate events such as the ones in El Frontón. e) proceedings before the military exclusive court constitutes an effective recourse to protect the victims and relatives' rights and repair the damages caused. In this case events were not investigated, and the liable parties were not punished either. The War Hall of the Supreme Council of the Ministry of Justice concluded that those who participated in subduing the riots had no responsibility. On the other hand, authorities did not make the necessary efforts to save the largest amount of lives possible after the prison was demolished, they did not implement the proper proceedings for the identification of bodies.