81 i) criminal proceedings must be public, that is, not only must the accused have access to the proceedings, but also society as a whole must have the possibility to see how the punitive power of the State is exercised; and ii) criminal judicial proceedings heard by military courts are not public; instead, they consist of written procedures to which citizens have no access. Furthermore, the investigation proceedings are not public. Even if the record of the case were available to anyone, this would not make the entire criminal proceedings public. Publicity of the proceedings should comprise each procedural stage thereof. None of these requirements were met in the proceedings brought against Mr. Palamara. h) Regarding the violation of Article 8 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1 and 2 thereof, the representatives argued that: i) the State has violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention as a result of its failure to fulfill the duties to “respect” and “ensure” the free and full exercise of all the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, and to adopt such domestic measures as may be necessary to enforce such rights and freedoms; and ii) the State is responsible for these violations “as it has failed to adopt effective judicial, legislative, and executive measures in order to legally ensure the free and full exercise of human rights.” 119. Arguments of the State:188 a) Regarding the alleged violations of the right to be tried by an impartial judge or court (Article 8(1) of the Convention), the State argued that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne held office as Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Department of the Third Naval Zone before being hired by the Navy as a contract civilian employee. Mr. Palamara-Iribarne was hired to perform the same duties as the Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Department of the Third Naval Zone, “thus being a member of the permanent personnel thereof.” The process of retirement from the Navy as an active-duty officer concluded “after the facts which gave rise to the above-mentioned judicial proceedings;” b) Article 6 of the Code of Military Justice provides that “any person who is under the regulations for the permanent personnel of the Army, Navy […] shall be deemed to have military status.” To the purpose of establishing whether the perpetrator of a criminal offense has military status or not, this general interpretative provision of the concept of “military” shall apply; c) 188 Articles 5(3) and 7 of the Code of Military Justice address the military The State did not submit any independent arguments to refer specifically to the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention.