48 police procedures and on the contents of the police deposition, all of which affected the independence of the judge; j) In any new proceeding against the alleged victim, the police deposition would retain its legal effects under article 2 of Legislative Decree No. 926; k) Even though the “faceless” Lima Superior Prosecutor declared that “there were no grounds for continuing on to an oral proceeding,” in his opinion of June 7, 1996, the Special Terrorism Chamber of the Lima Supreme Court considered that there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. And although, at first, the Superior Prosecutor had preferred not to bring charges, he was subsequently obliged to do so under article 13(d) of Decree Law No. 25,475; l) The State violated and continues to violate Article 8(1) of the Convention to the detriment of María Teresa De La Cruz Flores by having investigated, detained and prosecuted her under Decree Law No. 25,475, in the absence of an independent and impartial administration of justice, and by deciding that the police deposition should retain its effects in a possible oral proceeding under Legislative Decree No. 926; m) The statements in answer to the charge, made in favor of the alleged victim during the oral proceeding, were rejected, and the initial statements made by the witnesses to the police authorities were accepted as the truth; n) Article 13 of Decree Law No. 25,475 inverts the burden of proof and, in practice, creates a presumption of guilt that imposes on the defendant the onus probandi of his innocence. This norm establishes that the trial judge must open a criminal proceeding with an order to detain the defendant, and that, once the pre-trial investigation has been concluded, the file must be submitted to the President of the respective Superior Court, who must appoint the prosecutor who must formulate the charge; o) The alleged victim should not have to assume the defects of the Peruvian legal system. Peru had all the necessary means to exercise jurisdictio against her, while Mrs. De La Cruz Flores endured every kind of restriction to her right to defense and to the judicial guarantees that underpin due process; the State itself has acknowledged that “the legislation under which she was processed was being modified to adapt it to the standards of the American Convention”; p) Given the declarations of Peru and also the legislative framework within which the new trial would be held, the State would not provide the alleged victim with a fair trial respecting the standards of due process; q) If it is accepted that the State has the right to prosecute the alleged victim without the guarantees of due process, this would imply granting it authorization to “prosecute her continually [...], over and over again, for the same category of crime that the Court has considered violates the principle of legality”; and