8 17. Also, the Commission indicated that “the judgment [in the second process] is sustained among other elements in the evidence obtained in the framework of the initial process carried out before faceless judges,” connected “to the theory of the fruit of the poisonous tree that will be newly applied.” According to the Commission, “[r]egarding Mrs. Jacqueline Aroni Apcho, […] her political testimony, in which she mentions Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, was rendered before a faceless military prosecutor. Also, being questioned years later in an oral trial, […] she retracted from her statements against Mrs. De La Cruz Flores and in the process of confrontation, she signaled that she did not know her.” “Regarding the testimony of the regretful person identified as key, the Commission consider[ed] that the use of this type of evidence does not appear to be compatible with the guarantees of due process, in particular, with the right to a defense. In any case, this person, just as Mrs. Mantilla Morena, did not render testimony in the oral trial; therefore, his or her statements were approved at a police station without being confronted by other means of evidence.” * * * 18. The Court reminds, regarding the first process followed against Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, that in its Judgment it confirmed that the evidence in which the conviction against her included basically two police files that enclosed: 1) documents seized from six persons that would allegedly identify the victim as linked to the “Sendero Luminoso” organization for carrying out surgeries and the provision of medication, 2) testimonial declarations of the key regretful person A2230000001, 3) testimony of Mrs. Jacqueline Aroni Apcho and 4) declarations of Mrs. Elisa Mabel Mantilla Moreno.6 The Tribunal in its Judgment signaled that these declarations “offered contradictions” and that Mrs. De La Cruz Flores, “did not have the opportunity to interrogate the regretful person key A2230000001, whose declaration was central for the formulation of the accusation against her.” Likewise, the Tribunal verified that the convicting judgment considered that: [the case file] describes the documentation found in 1992 on [six people], in which the defendant is implicated, and in which she appears under the alias “Elíana”; one of these documents refers not only to meeting points carried out with the defendant, but also, examines her doctrinal and ideological evolution within the organization, there are descriptions of talks that she has given, as a physician; that she has taken part in an operation as the assistant surgeon, and of problems within the health sector, all of which has been corroborated [...] by the defendant, Elisa Mabel Mantilla Moreno, who, in the presence of the Prosecutor states that, on one occasion, she met with María Teresa De la Cruz on the orders of her ‘handler,’ to coordinate several matters; […] the same defendant […] accuses her of being one of the supportive elements responsible for providing treatment and performing operations; [...] accuses her of participating in an surgery of ‘Mario’ whose hand had been burned, which corroborates the foregoing; namely, that she took part as assistant surgeon in a skin-grafting operation; and it is evident that the defendant has denied this during the proceeding so as to elude her criminal liability, which has been adequately proved[.] 19. In its Judgment, this Court made a very detailed evaluation of the procedure followed against Mrs. De La Cruz. That exhaustive analysis included the judgments in which the accusation made against the victim was evaluated. After such a detailed analysis, the Court considered that there was a penalization of the medical act, and established that 6 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 5, paras. 73.14, 73.15, and 73.16.