15 42. The State objected to certain witnesses called by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in this Judgment (supra, para. 13), and the Court reserved the right to evaluate at a later date the statements given at this stage of the proceeding, that is, when it came to render its Judgment on the merits. The Court observes that the criteria for evaluating evidence in an international human rights tribunal are endowed with special characteristics. This Court is not a criminal court; the grounds for objecting to witnesses do not operate in the same way, so that the investigation into a State's international liability for human rights violations bestows on the Court greater latitude to use logic and experience in its evaluation of oral testimony. It should be noted, in this particular, that the Court has found that under the American Convention on Human Rights, it is contradictory to deny a witness a priori -on the ground that he has been prosecuted or even convicted in the domestic courts- the opportunity to testify on facts in a case submitted to the Court, even if that case refers to matters that affect him (Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 145). 43. The Court's evaluation of the evidence contained in the statements of the witnesses challenged by Peru is as follows. The Court considers that the statement given by Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, as the alleged victim in this case with a possible direct interest, should be evaluated in the context of the evidence as a whole. The Court admits the other statements only in so far as they relate to the purpose of the investigation proposed by the Commission, and the expert opinions as they relate to national or comparative law, without reference to the specific case. 44. In evaluating the evidence, the Court takes cognizance of the State's observations on terrorism, which leads to an escalation of violence to the detriment of human rights. However, the Court cautions that exceptional circumstances cannot be invoked in order to undermine human rights. None of the provisions of the American Convention may be interpreted in such a way as to allow States Parties or any group or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of recognized rights or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided therein (Article 29(2). The origin of this precept is to be found as far back as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 30). IX 45. The view of the Court is that the statements and expert opinions received on Peruvian territory and at the seat of the Court were as follows: a. Testimony of Juan Alberto Delgadillo-Castañeda Juan Alberto Delgadillo-Castañeda, convicted in Peru on a charge of terrorism, testified as follows: he was accused of belonging to the "Shining Path", the Communist Party of Peru; he was arrested at his home, taken to DINCOTE where he was blindfolded, beaten, interrogated and threatened; he was later taken to an unknown beach together with Ms. Loayza and another detainee by the name of Delaine; they were questioned, tortured, and physically assaulted; with his hands tied behind his back, he was placed head-first into the water. He was held incommunicado during his detention; 21 days after he was detained, he was exhibited to the press wearing "prison stripes", together with seven men and seven women; he was assigned a court-appointed counsel, who wore an uniform and Balaclava helmet; he was not allowed to appoint an attorney of his choosing, and he was taken before the military courts where the trial lasted three days at the Army Veterinary Hospital; he was acquitted during the oral proceedings before the military court of appeal. His second trial, in the civil court system, was held at the office of the Director of the Penitentiary in Ica, Cachiche. In the military courts he was forced