46 w) In its brief answering the report of Article 50 of the Convention, the State indicated that “in compliance with the domestic legal system, the petitioner shall have the right to a fair, impartial and prompt proceeding, in which she must prove her alleged innocence”; x) Neither the alleged victim nor her lawyer were able to request clarification of the police depositions on which the charges against her were based because, by law, the officials who prepared them were excluded from appearing before the court. Furthermore, they were not allowed to question a key witness, who testified unidentified, during the trial; y) In its judgment of January 3, 2003, the Constitutional Court found that the legal provision that prevented the questioning of investigating officials who had taken part in preparing the police deposition, so as to protect their right to life, was compatible with the Constitution; z) Legislative Decree No. 922 of February 19, 2003, established rules regarding evidence for the new criminal trials. Nevertheless, it only established new assessment criteria for the new trials in relation to evidence used by the military courts in crimes of treason; aa) The alleged victim’s trial was held in a private hearing to which the public did not have access, as noted in the respective record; bb) The absence of evidence and the inappropriate grounds for the facts, which characterize the judgment convicting the alleged victim and the judgment that confirmed this conviction, constitute a violation of the right to judicial guarantees embodied in Articles 8 and 9 of the American Convention; cc) The requirement that the actual grounds for a judgment should be stated relates to the rationale for the decision, using the criteria that the body of evidence should be assessed with sound criticism and logic; dd) In this case, the first-instance judgment is the only one that contains any conclusions allowing the alleged victim’s responsibility to be declared; ee) The second-instance judgment did not drawn any conclusions about the rationale of the first-instance judgment when confirming it, also with an “absolute lack of grounds,” which, in practice, removed the alleged victim from judicial protection; ff) The judgment of June 8, 1998, confirming the judgment convicting María Teresa De La Cruz Flores, also considered the behavior of other defendants under the same charges and with similar evidence, and acquitted them; gg) In January 1999, the National Corporative Chamber for Cases of Terrorism acquitted two physicians charged with the crime of terrorism, because it concluded that the mere testimony of one or more “arrepentidos” was insufficient grounds for a conviction. It acknowledged that the behavior of these physicians was in keeping with the ethics and legality of their professional activities; and