provides credibility to legal decisions within a democratic society and indicates to the parties that they have been heard.259 149. As a guarantee for the defendant in criminal proceedings, the statement of reasons is also addressed at ensuring the principle of presumption of innocence because it allows the individual subject to the punitive powers of the State to understand the reasons why a firm conviction was reached concerning the attribution of criminal responsibility, and also how the evidence was assessed in order to disprove any hypothesis of innocence, and thus confirm or refute the accusatory hypothesis.260 This allows the presumption of innocence to be disproved and criminal responsibility determined beyond any reasonable doubt, and also makes it possible to exercise the right to defense by the ability to appeal the guilty verdict.261 150. In this way, the statement of reasons demonstrates to the parties that they have been heard and, in those cases in which the ruling can be appealed, enables the decision to be challenged in order to achieve a fresh examination by a higher court. On this basis, the reasoning that supports a ruling or certain administrative proceedings should allow the facts, reasons and laws on which the authority based itself to take the decision to be known so as to rule out any indication of arbitrariness.262 151. Additionally, the Court emphasizes that the use of gender stereotypes as grounds for a legal decision may reveal that the decision was based on preconceived beliefs rather than relevant facts. Therefore, stereotyping may reveal the absence of reasoning and a violation of the presumption of innocence, and jeopardize the impartiality of the judge.263 152. In this case, the reasoning of the judgment did not establish the causal nexus between Manuela’s actions and the death of the newborn with factual evidence, other than mentioning the supposed complaint made by Manuela’s father.264 This absence of reasoning was substituted by stereotypes and preconceived ideas, rather than by evidence that reliably proved the presumed victim’s guilt. Thus, the court indicated that: When reviewing the different versions that the defendant gave to the different persons who interviewed her, such as, “that she was unaware of everything and perhaps the baby had come with the pain or with the diarrhea, and that she had fainted, or in the worst case that, in this situation of unconsciousness, it was someone else who had thrown the baby into the septic tank”; these statements are unbelievable and even improbable under the rules of acceptable human understanding, because the maternal instinct is to protect the child, and, generally, any complication in the delivery results in seeking immediate medical help or, at the very least, the help of close family members, not depriving a newborn of its life. However, in this case the defendant, in her efforts to dispose of the product of her pregnancy following the birth – because it was the result of infidelity – and given the Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 78, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, paras. 83 and 84. 259 260 269. 261 Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 147, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 270. Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 122, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 84. 262 263 Cf. CEDAW, 33 on women’s access to justice, CEDAW/C/GC/33, August 3, 2015, para. 26. In this regard, the Court notes that the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the prohibition for parents to bear witness against their children. “Article 231. A child may not testify against his/her parents, or vice versa; a husband against his wife or vice versa; a sibling against another sibling; an adopter against an adoptee or vice versa, and the life partner against the partner. This prohibition shall not include the complaint filed for an offense committed against the complainant or against persons he/she legally represents or whose relationship to him/her is equal or closer that the one that connects him/her to the person accused.” Code of Criminal Procedure of El Salvador, Legislative Decree No. 776 of 1996, Article 231. Available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/ mesicic3_slv_procesal.pdf 264 45