41 a) the “faceless judges” who participated in the present case entered the case with prejudice and assumed a priori that the accused was guilty, meaning that Peru violated Article 8(2) of the Convention. It is the obligation of the State to prove the guilt of the accused, not the obligation of the accused to prove his/her innocence; b) in the present case, the indications taken into consideration to convict Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides “did not meet the requirements of formality, precision and compatibility needed to establish the subjective link that must exist between the perpetrator of the criminal offense and the criminal act;” c) the detention and trials of Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides were not supported, in fact or in law, by reasonable grounds for incrimination, since Peru punished an innocent person whose link to terrorist activities was not demonstrated; and d) Peru also violated the principle of presumption of innocence when, on February 26, 1993, Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was “paraded by the DINCOTE before the media, dressed in a striped uniform, as a member of the PCP-SL and as the perpetrator of the crime of treason against the fatherland.” 117. For its part, the State alleged that: a) Peruvian law guarantees the presumption of innocence in Articles 2(20)f) of the Constitution of 1979, 12.c) of Decree Law No. 25.475 and 13 of Decree Law No. 24.475. According to the State, the Commission is attempting to disavow the legitimacy of the special processes of investigation and judgment for the crimes of treason against the fatherland in the exclusive military jurisdiction; however, when arguing against the outcome of the trial of the same person in the regular courts, it reaffirms its action because it involved a judgment favorable to it; and b) the Commission cannot rightfully, via judicial maneuvers, claim a violation of the right to the presumption of innocence since, based on the evidence presented initially, the criminal liability of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was corroborated and accredited during the proceedings. The burden of proof lies with the accuser and, in the present case, the proof consisted of the expert handwriting evidence which was the basis for the presumption of liability for the crime of terrorism, and was corroborated during the criminal proceeding in the regular courts, which determined said liability. * * 118. * Article 8(2) of the Convention reads: Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. 119. The Court observes, in the first place, that in the present case it is proven that Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was paraded before the media, dressed in defamatory