52 VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8(3) (CONFESSION) 163. Article 8(3) provides that: [...] [A] confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if is made without coercion of any kind. 164. Argument of the Commission: During the preliminary proceedings, the alleged victims were ordered to tell the truth, despite the fact that “the accused must speak freely [and] may not be subject to any kind of pressure to ‘tell the truth’,” as he is not a witness and is protected by law against having to testify against himself. “If the right is not to testify in general, there can be no obligation to testify in a certain manner. The maxim of the law is that silence can only be construed as a manifestation of innocence.” 165. 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). 166. The fact that the violation of Article 8(3) of the Convention was not included in the application filed by the Commission but only in its final pleading does not preclude this Tribunal examining the allegation during the proceedings on the merits, in accordance with the principle of iura novit curia. 96 167. The Court has established that during the preliminary testimony before the Judge of the Special Military Court of Inquiry, the accused were urged to tell the truth. However, nothing in the record suggests that any punishment or other adverse legal consequence was threatened if they did not tell the truth. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the accused were required to testify under oath or to swear to tell the truth, either of which would have violated their right to choose between testifying and not testifying. 168. The Court therefore finds that it has not been proven in these proceedings that the State violated Article 8(3) of the Convention. *** VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8(5) (PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS) 169. Article 8(5) of the Convention provides the following: [...] 96. Cf. Blake Case, supra note 4, para. 112.