38 psychological torture. The Court also considers that said acts were planned and inflicted deliberately upon Mr. Cantoral-Benavides for at least two purposes. Prior to his conviction, the purpose was to wear down his psychological resistance and force him to incriminate himself or to confess to certain illegal activities. After he was convicted, the purpose was to subject him to other types of punishment, in addition to imprisonment. 105. As regards the alleged violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention visà-vis the relatives of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides, the Court recognizes that the situation Mrs. Gladys Benavides-de-Cantoral and Mr. Luis Fernando Cantoral-Benavides, mother and brother of the victim, respectively, went through as a result of his detention and imprisonment caused them severe suffering and anguish, but the Tribunal will assess same when setting necessary reparations for proven violations of the American Convention. 106. Given the above, the Court concludes that the State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, Article 5(1) And 5(2) of the American Convention. XII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 107. The Commission alleged that, in the present case, the State had violated the following rights and guarantees of due process covered in the American Convention: to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal (Article 8(1)); to the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2)); to have adequate time and means to prepare a proper defense (Article 8(2)c); to choose a lawyer (Article 8(2)d); to question witnesses (Article 8(2)f); to not be compelled to be a witness against himself and to speak without coercion of any kind (Article 8(2)g and 8(3)); to not be subjected, after being acquitted in a nonappealable judgment, to a new trial for the same facts –non bis in idem- (Article 8(4)), and to a public trial (Article 8(5)). Violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention Competent, independent and impartial judge 108. As regards the violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was judged, both in the military and regular courts, by “faceless judges” who lacked the independence and impartiality demanded by Article 8(1) of the Convention; b) Decree Law 25.659 (Crime of Treason Against the Fatherland) states that persons accused of having committed said crime shall be judged by military judges. By expanding the military jurisdiction to include civilians, Peru contradicts due respect for the guarantees of the administration of justice and the right of persons to be judged by the appropriate and competent judge. The exclusive military jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction which is subordinate to the Executive Branch; and