49 *** VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8(2)(F) (RIGHT TO EXAMINE WITNESSES) 150. Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention provides as follows: 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: [...] f) the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; 151. Argument of the Commission: Given the provision contained in Article 13 of Decree-Law No. 24,575, “it is very difficult to get the police or army agents who took part in the investigation to appear in court and be cross-examined to enable the defense to refute the evidence.” “As neither the accused nor their defense counsel were present when the agents’ statements were taken, there was no crossexamination.” 152. Argument of the State: the proceedings […] scrupulously complied with the procedural guarantees established in Peruvian law, especially those relating to due process … (supra 145.b). 153. The law applied in the case did not allow cross-examination of the witnesses whose testimony was the basis for the charges brought against the alleged victims. The problem created by disallowing cross-examination of the police and military agents was compounded, as previously established (supra 141), by the fact that the suspects were not allowed the advice of counsel until they had made their statements to the police. This left the defense attorneys with no means to refute the evidence compiled and on record in the police investigation report. 154. As the European Court has held, one of the prerogatives of the accused must be the opportunity to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf, under the same conditions as witnesses against him.95 155. In the Court’s view, the restrictions imposed on the victims’ defense attorneys violated the defense’s right to examine witnesses and to obtain the appearance of persons who might have shed light on the facts, as recognized in the Convention. 156. The Court therefore finds that the State violated Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention. 95. Eur. Court H. R., case of Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo, decision of December 6, 1998, Series A No. 146, para. 78 and Eur. Court H. R., Bönisch case, judgment of May 6, 1985, Series A No. 92, para. 32.