73 o) “[E]ven though it is true that García-Asto was acquitted in the new proceedings […], it is also true that had there been an analysis by the Prosecutor and the examining Judge after the annulment of the previous proceedings –and of the order for the commencement of the pre-trial proceedings of March 10, 2003 which provisionally defined his legal situation–, the [alleged] victim would not have been submitted to new proceedings. In fact, there was no evidence on the materiality of the conduct charged; however, the judge refused to review it when he denied its practice.” Arguments of the representatives 146. With respect to Article 8 of the Convention, the representatives stated that they agreed with the arguments submitted by the Commission in its complaint, and added that: a) The State of Peru had violated the alleged victims’ right to a fair trial when advancing proceedings against them by secret judges; when denying Urcesino Ramírez the right to be heard within a reasonable time; “when denying them the right to be presumed innocent; to examine the persons who issued the judicial reports against them and the persons who testified against them; [as well as] to be given a reasoned decision;” b) The violation of the right to a fair trial set forth in the Convention to the detriment of the alleged victims has to be “construe[d] in the light of Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions, in accordance with Article 29 (a), (b), and (c) of the Convention;” c) “Decree-Law 25.475 adopt[ed] in 1992, violat[ed] the standards of a fair trial provided for in the Constitution. […] Consequently, when applying said legislation and prosecuting and convicting the alleged victims according to it, the State violated [their] right to a fair trial and to the judicial guarantees referred to in Article 8 of the Convention;” d) The State did not offer the alleged victims, within a reasonable time, a new trial in which the rules of due process were observed; e) In the case of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, “although criminal proceedings against him were commenced again twenty-seven months ago […], they are still at the investigation stage as joinders have been ordered and extensions have been repeatedly granted, although Article 220 of the State C[riminal Procedural Code] restricts so;” and f) The right to defense enshrined in Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention assumes being given proper and timely notice of the decisions rendered by the jurisdictional authority. Wilson García-Asto was served on the Supreme Court decision of February 9, 2005 which confirmed his acquittal on May 10, 2005, during the hearing summoned by the Inter-American Court in the city of Asunción, Paraguay, through the State agent. Arguments of the State