2 C. The right of defense... D. The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself and to confess without coercion of any kind. E. The judicial guarantee [...] which prohibits that someone be subjected to two criminal trials for the same events. (Application before the Inter-American Court, pg. 34). In more specific terms, the general opposition to the criminal procedures to which Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides was subjected include accusations such as the following: a. That he was detained without an arrest warrant issued by a competent authority (pg. 21). b. That some weeks after his detention he was exhibited before the mass media dressed in a "striped uniform," as a member of the "Shining Path" and the perpetrator of the crime of treason against the fatherland (pg. 43). c. That the criminal charge for which Luis Alberto CantoralBenavides was tried-a decision which determined the applicable jurisdiction and proceedings-, was made by the Peruvian National Police (more specifically DINCOTE) and not by an independent tribunal (Pg. 37). d. That he was tried, both in the exclusive military jurisdiction and in the civilian jurisdiction by "faceless judges," lacking in independence and impartiality (pg. 34) and who could not be asked by the accused to recuse themselves when they were “prejudiced” or "partial" (pg. 37). e. That he was tried by judges from the Exclusive Military Jurisdiction, who pursuant to the Organic Law of Military Justice of Peru are a part of the Ministry of Defense and who, as a consequence, are subordinate to the Executive branch. Moreover, for the Commission, the Peruvian Armed Forces have as an essential function the fight against irregular armed groups. The application asserts that the Peruvian Armed Forces assume the function of judging those accused of belonging to those groups, they assume a function of the judiciary and cast serious doubt on the impartiality of the military courts, which become both judge and party to the proceedings (pg. 36). f. That the courts that tried him admitted as partial evidence of his guilt a confession obtained by coercion; based their decisions on the value of testimony and experts’ reports that the accused did not have the opportunity to adequately examine and on evidence that did not possess sufficient characteristics of gravity, precision, and consistency; and deemed the accused’s refusal to accept his guilt (when he renounced his initial confession) to be evidence against him (pgs. 40, 42, 45, 46, and 47). g. That Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides could not, because it was prohibited by Decree-Laws 25,475 and 25,744, request the