74 147. With respect to Article 8 of the Convention, the State pointed out that: a) In the proceedings instituted against the alleged victims “it is clear that the judges hearing their respective proceedings held such position long before their appointment as judges with secret identity; consequently, jurisdiction is not infringed;” b) The fact of keeping the judge’s identity under cover was legitimate, “considering that the intimidating activity or actions of the terrorists related to the defendants who were free constituted a latent threat for the judges and their families;” c) “The enactment of Law No. 26.671 tacitly annulled Article 15 of DecreeLaw No. 25.475, as well as all other provisions which implicitly prevented the defendant from getting to know the identity of the Judge;” d) In the case of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas “there has not been an undue delay, as this is a legal concept evidently undetermined or open;” e) “[I]n the criminal proceedings, the Police Report only has the status of a preliminary Report, which under no circumstances leads to an absolute relation with the Judge. Nonetheless, according to Article 72 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Peru of 1940, it also has evidentiary value only when the Public Prosecutor’s representative has participated therein;” f) “Legislative Decree No. 922 of February 12, 2003 states the rules of evidence, of procedure, and other rules applicable to the prosecution of [the alleged victims] for the crime of Terrorism;” g) “The proceedings for terrorism against the [alleged victims] wo[uld] also be processed according to the rules of the Ordinary Proceedings, which in Peru are governed by the Criminal Procedural Code in force since 1940;” h) Stating that the new legislation enacted by virtue of the Judgment of January 3, 2003 rendered by the Constitutional Court and the new ordinary rules of procedure in force violate the American Convention “without discriminating specifically the case of [Mr.] García-Asto and [Mr.] Ramírez-Rojas [,] suggests a generic claim;” i) “[T]he exclusionary rule does not justify setting aside –as a consequence of the annulment of the proceedings– of all physical evidentiary elements and documents of a judicial proceeding, without first differentiating those which are independent of or are not related to the infringements committed from those which are legally contaminated. The exclusionary rule entails no consequences as a result of the annulment of a criminal case, and does not apply to pre-trial proceedings or the indictment, but to the criminal judgment;” j) The debates on the exclusionary rule and presumption of innocence concern the reasonability of already rendered judgments;