discovery statement.165 Furthermore, he issued the definitive detention order;166 thus, in deciding on the legal status of the alleged victim, he assessed the statement of the facts and cautioned that the accused recognized having received money from drug traffickers and distributing it among the codefendants.167 188. The Court considers that by having participated in the investigation by the National Police of Peru as legal counsel of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio and as advisor to his hierarchical superior, that Judge should not have heard the alleged victim’s subsequent prosecution in the military criminal jurisdiction. This constitutes in and of itself a violation of the right to an impartial judge, given that his previous intervention as legal counsel of the accused and advisor to the accuser objectively raises doubts on whether at the time of hearing the subsequent proceedings he had already adopted a position shaped or influenced by his previous contact with those individuals and the information received from them. His participation definitely did not offer sufficient guarantees of an objective nature to inspire the necessary trust of the parties in the judge’s impartiality. Therefore, the Court considers that the State violated Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’s right to be heard by an impartial tribunal, in violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Moreover, the Court calls to mind that it already decided on the violation of Article 8(2)(e) of the Convention in the ordinary criminal proceedings. 189. Finally, regarding the other claims made by the Commission and the representative, the Court considers that by having declared that the proceedings against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio were heard by a judge who lacked impartiality, the proceedings had defects from the very beginning, which means that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio did not have access to the judicial guarantees set forth in Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention. C.3. Conclusion on the military criminal proceedings 190. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that in the military criminal proceedings the State did not guarantee that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio be heard by an impartial tribunal, in violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Moreover, the Court deems it unnecessary to decide on the alleged violations to the guarantees established in Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention. 165 Cf. Discovery statement of retired intelligence lieutenant Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio of June 20, 1995 (evidence file, folios 89 and 90). Appendix 1 to the State’s brief of March 3, 2017. 166 Cf. Order of the Permanent Military Judge of August 9, 1995, that issued the definitive order against Mr. Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio. Appendix 7. (File containing evidence to facilitate adjudication, folios 3997 and 3998). 167 Cf. “Tarapoto, August 9, 1995.- Having seen; having received the discovery statement of retired Intelligence Lieutenant Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio, and assessing the statement of the facts included in pages 79 to 82, the accused recognizes having received money from drug traffickers and having distributed it among the codefendants; therefore, in adjudging on his legal status in conformity with Article 524 of the Military Code of Justice, DECIDES THAT: a definitive detention order shall be issued against the accused, retired Intelligence Lieutenant Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio, security measure that he will serve at Juanjuí prison (National Penitentiary Institution of Juanjuí); given that the accused is currently serving the same measure imposed in the ordinary jurisdiction, where he was processed for the crime of illicit drug trafficking. He will be brought before the Military Court, as many times as required, with prior notification to the ordinary jurisdiction for the pertinent purposes.- Notify the Prosecutor, the accused and his defense counsel. Tr and Reg. Names and signatures of the Permanent Military Judge JRH and the legal secretary, O. Raúl Medina Navarro.” 43