A.3. Conclusion on the military disciplinary proceedings 161. Based on the foregoing, regarding the military disciplinary proceedings, the Court concludes that the State of Peru violated the right of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio to be assisted by legal counsel, the right to a hearing, the right to adequate grounds and the right to defend oneself enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. However, the Court considers that the State did not violate the right to presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 8(2) of the Convention or the right to freedom from ex post facto laws set forth in Article 9 of that instrument. B. Ordinary criminal jurisdiction: Alleged violation of the duty to provide grounds, right to be assisted by legal counsel and right to defend oneself B.1. Duty to provide grounds B.1.1 Arguments of the Commission and the parties 162. The Commission claimed that the State corrected the lack of adequate grounds of the judgment of April 17, 1996, through the order of April 24, 1996. However, it argued that the judgment of June 19, 1997, that decided on the appeal for annulment and increased the sentence to more than double that imposed in the first instance lacked adequate grounds, since it only listed the general criteria that the sentence must be imposed in relation to the personal conditions of the accused and the manner and circumstances in which the crime was committed, without making any specific determinations. Therefore, it considered that the State violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 163. The representative agreed with that indicated by the Commission. 164. The State argued that, as recognized by the Commission and the representative, it did not violate Article 8(1) of the Convention given that it corrected the alleged lack of legal grounds of the order of April 17, 1996, of the Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of San Martín. Moreover, regarding the alleged lack of legal grounds of the judgment of June 19, 1997, which increased the alleged victim’s sentence from 6 to 15 years, the State claimed that in practice the increase in the sentence did not have any effect or detriment to the alleged victim because: (i) on March 4, 1999, two years after that judgment was issued, the alleged victim obtained the penitentiary benefit of study or work release. Therefore, he was only imprisoned until March 4, 1999, for a total of four years and six months; (ii) on May 24, 2001, Law 27454 was published in the official newspaper, which modified the Code of Criminal Procedure and prohibited the Supreme Court from imposing greater sentences, with retroactive application; moreover, individuals who had been convicted to longer sentences could request the modification of the sentence; and (iii) in the order of September 28, 2001, the Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of San Martín, modified ex officio the sentence imposed on Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio to 6 years, which, discounting the time served since September 5, 1994, ended on September 4, 2000. Thus, it requested the Court to indicate that it did not violate Article 8(1) of the Convention on this count. B.1.2 Considerations of the Court 165. The controversy at this point is determining whether the State violated the duty to provide grounds established in Article 8(1) of the Convention in relation to the judgment issued on June 19, 1997, which increased the alleged victim’s sentence from 6 to 15 years, given that the Commission and the representative claim that this increased sentence lacked legal grounds. 166. The Court calls to mind that “the responsibility of the State under the Convention can only be demanded internationally after the State has had the opportunity to recognize the violation of 37