75 k) When requesting that all evidence for the prosecution and for the defense be gathered as if commencing the investigation proceedings again, “[t]he Commission seeks that rules which can only be applied to the trial hearings and to the judgments be applied to the preliminary or investigation stage, which only purpose is to prepare the indictment [.] This criticism would be valid and reasonable if it were made regarding the trial and it were claimed that during the trial the incriminating evidence was not processed again;” and l) The assessment of the evidence material is a matter of domestic jurisdiction, that is, of the Peruvian Judicial Power, which is set forth in Article 283 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an analysis of which shall have to be consciously carried out. Considerations of the Court 148. Article 8 of the American Convention sets forth that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. 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. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: […] c) adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; […] f) the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; […] 5. Criminal proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice. a) Regarding the alleged violations of Article 8 of the Convention to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto i) First proceedings instituted against Wilson García-Asto 149. The Court has considered proven the fact that Wilson García-Asto was tried by “faceless” courts (supra paras. 97(27) and 98(28)), which made it impossible for him to know the identity of the judge and, consequently, to assess his capacity, to know if there were grounds for objection, and to exercise a proper defense before an independent and unbiased court.152 Furthermore, his trial was not made public. In this 152 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 147; Case of Cantoral-Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 127; and Case of CastilloPetruzzi et al. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 133.