94 179. The above-mentioned restrictions imposed on Mr. Palamara-Iribarne and his defense counsel in Case No. 464 regarding the criminal offenses of disobedience and breach of military duties and in Case No. 471 regarding the criminal offense of contempt of authority, both brought before the Naval Court of Magallanes, violated the guarantees inherent to the right to defense, as well as the right to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts, as enshrined in Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention.205 180. Furthermore, the Court must highlight that during both military criminal proceedings Mr. Palamara-Iribarne made a statement before the Prosecutor on several occasions. Regarding such statements the Court will make two observations. On the one hand, on neither occasion did Mr. Palamara-Iribarne give testimony before a competent, impartial, and independent judge or court, which is in violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. On the other hand, the various summonses served on the accused did neither state the reason why he was requested to appear nor the subject on which he was requested to give testimony. Nor was he informed that he was entitled not to be a witness against himself. Due to the structure inherent to military criminal proceedings and the resulting lack of impartiality, the Naval Prosecutor cannot be put on an equal footing with the judge who guarantees the right to a hearing. Therefore, the State has violated Article 8(1) and 8(2)(g) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Palamara-Iribarne. 181. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the State has violated Article 8 of the Convention in relation to subparagraphs (1), (5), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(f) and (2)(g), to the detriment of Mr. Humberto Antonio Palamara-Iribarne, and has failed to fulfill the general duty to respect and guarantee the rights and freedoms enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention. Furthermore, as its domestic legal system contains provisions which oppose the guarantees of due process protected by the above-mentioned subparagraphs of Article 8 of the Convention and which are still in full force and effect, the State of Chile has failed to comply with the general duty to adopt domestic measures as set forth in Article 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, as the Chilean domestic legislation contains provisions which oppose the right to a hearing by a competent court as provided in Article 8(1) of the Convention and which are still in full force and effect, the State of Chile has failed to comply with the general duty to adopt domestic measures as set forth in Article 2 of the Convention. * * d) * The right to judicial protection 182. Article 25 of the Convention provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or 205 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 191, para. 185; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 172, para. 166; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 192, para. 155 .