5 20. The petitioner alleges that the right to the presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 8.2 of the American Convention, has been violated in the instant case, because he was convicted without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, as noted by the two justices of the Supreme Court in the report issued by them in response to the motion for review of conviction filed by him. He also alleges that the conviction was handed down in violation of Article 139.5 of the Political Constitution and Article 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Peru, which require judges to base criminal convictions on evidence proving the guilt of the defendant, as well as to lay out a proper basis in the facts and the law for the conviction. 21. The alleged victim argues that, in his particular case, he was presumed guilty, was not provided the opportunity to defend himself, was deprived of his liberty solely on the basis of a codefendant’s accusation, and was held in custody even though there was no risk of flight, inasmuch as the he was an active-duty, high-ranking police chief, with a brilliant service record, was gainfully employed and lived at a known place of residence, was married and had 5 minor children, and appeared before the court on his own accord in order to be investigated. 22. The petitioner requests the IACHR to [have the Peruvian State]: 1) declare the conviction against him null and void and issue an acquittal; 2) investigate and punish those responsible for these arbitrary acts, including the prosecuting attorneys who investigated him and found him responsible; 3) reinstate him to the National Police within a reasonable period of time and with a rank equivalent to PNP Commander; 4) order the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the National Police of Peru to personally and publically issue an apology; and 5) provide adequate reparation for material and moral damages caused by the human rights violations perpetrated against him. 23. The Commission notes that during the merits stage of the case the petitioner argued on several occasions about the alleged violation of other rights enshrined in the American Convention, which were found inadmissible by this Commission in Admissibility Report No. 20/09 and, accordingly, these alleged violations will not be addressed in this report. B. State 24. The State asserts that the Fifth Chamber for Criminal Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima convicted Agustín Bladimiro Zegarra Marín in a judgment of November 8, 1996, as a coperpetrator in crimes against the administration of justice (aiding in the escape of a fugitive from justice), abuse of authority to authenticate official public documents (forgery of documents in general) and corruption of public officials, to the detriment of the State, and sentenced him to a 4-year jail term as punishment, suspending execution of the sentence, provided that he abides by predetermined conditions and rules of conduct. It contends that the conviction was based on the evidence that was introduced, debated and examined during the proceedings and that there is no basis for any claim that the petitioner’s right to the presumption of innocence was violated, by taking a phrase used in the judgment of conviction out of context, which would seem that the alleged victim is being punished because he failed to prove his own innocence. The State contends that the following phrase appearing in the judgment of conviction, “(…) inasmuch as no compelling exculpatory evidence has emerged that makes him innocent of the offenses he is charged with (…),” is meant to express that none of evidence out of the entire body introduced and examined by the judges in the case led them to rule in favor of Zegarra Marín, inasmuch as based on the evidence before them, which was evaluated during the course of the criminal proceeding, respecting all due process rights provided for in the criminal law in effect at