31 119. The State argued that “[i]n 1993, the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted by Legislative Decree No. 52-73, of July 5, 1993, was in force, sanctioned by the Executive Branch on July 27 that year; […] it was structured on the principles of a mixed model or a mixed adversarial model, divided into two stages; the first, a pre-trial stage conducted by a first instance judge or investigating magistrate,111 and the second, the trial or plenary stage conducted by the sentencing judge.112 The position of the procedural subjects sought for [the procedure] to be different at the two stages of the proceedings. […] However, in forensic practice, the proceedings were always wholly inquisitorial, because the entire proceedings were based on a significant burden of proof as part of the investigation or pre-trial stage conducted by a judge as he considered appropriate.” 120. Article 8(5) of the American Convention establishes that “[c]riminal proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice.” This Court has indicated that one of the principal characteristics that the substantiation of criminal proceedings should respect is their public nature, which is an essential element of the adversarial criminal procedural systems of a democratic State. This is guaranteed by holding an oral stage during which the defendant may have direct contact with the judge and the evidence and which facilitates access to the public. The right to public proceedings is protected by various international instruments as an essential element of the judicial guarantees.113 The purpose of the public nature of proceedings is to proscribe the secret administration of justice, subjecting it to the scrutiny of the parties and the public, and it relates to the need for the transparency and impartiality of the decisions taken. It is also a means for promoting confidence in the courts of justice. This public nature refers specifically to access to information on the proceedings for the parties and even for third parties.114 121. The Court notes that the laws in force at the time of the facts reveal that the proceedings were public, with the exception of those procedures that, due to their nature, could be confidential and secret during the investigation or the preliminary inquiries and up until the order to open the case to trial, according to article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.115 Moreover, the possibility of conducting oral procedures was established during the pre-trial investigation and adjudication stages in criminal proceedings. In this case, various oral procedures were conducted during the pre-trial investigation stage. However, at the adjudication stage, despite the possibility of the reception of oral evidence, such evidence was rejected due to formal errors in the presentation of the list of questions for the witnesses. 122. Although this Court has indicated that an oral stage – during which the defendant may have direct contact with the judge and the evidence and which facilitates access to the public – is one of the guarantees associated with the principle of the public nature of proceedings, the public nature of proceedings is not the same as their oral nature. In this case, the alleged victims and their defense counsel had access to the case file and the evidence gathered against the former, so that the judicial actions conducted were not confidential or secret. Therefore, During the pre-trial or investigation stage, it is the judge who conducts the investigation while the parties may only propose the probative elements that the judge should obtain, if he considers these pertinent and useful. 112 During the trial or plenary stage, the Code established a public, continuous and contradictory debate through procedural immediacy. 113 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 166. 114 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 168, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 217. 115 The said article 14 establishes: The investigation stage, up until the order to open the case to trial, is confidential and secret as indicated in this code. The actions of the public prosecution are public, and interested parties may obtain any reports, attestations, copies or certifications they request, unless these refer to diplomatic or military matters, information provided by private individuals under a guarantee of confidentiality, or procedures that owing to their inherent and special nature require confidentiality. The judge shall rule on these matters under his own responsibility. Cf. Code of Criminal Procedure, supra. 111