43. The State describes a series of domestic proceedings similar to the narrative given by the petitioner. 44. Peru maintains that an analysis of the circumstances that led to the petitioner’s criminal prosecution, his imprisonment, and his subsequent release indicates that those events obeyed jurisdictional procedures against which, at the time, appeals were made at the highest level. The State further maintains that during the petitioner’s entire prosecution for crimes against public documents, the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention were upheld. 45. The State holds that the right of all individuals to due process and a fair trial must provide all trial participants with the opportunity for the timely and correct exercise of their rights. It maintains that in proceedings characterized by due process and that respected the principles of legality, equality, and judicial guarantees, the petitioner was given the opportunity to establish his legal situation, which was determined by the judiciary in accordance with the criminal procedure provisions then in force, with the Constitution, and with the international human rights instruments to which Peru is a party. 46. In the State’s opinion, Mr. Zegarra Marín’s conviction was handed down in regular proceedings after defeating the presumption of innocence, which is a procedural guarantee that requires judges, prosecutors, and all other parties to hold the accused innocent at all stages of the investigation and trial until such time as he is convicted by a final judgment. 47. The State notes that Article 159 of the Constitution stipulates the powers of the Public Prosecution Service, which include “bringing, on an ex officio basis or at the request of a third party, judicial action to defend the legal order and the public interests that the law protects.” Those powers, says the State, also include “ensuring the independence of jurisdictional agencies and the correct administration of justice” and “conducting, from the onset, investigations of crimes. With that aim, the National Police is obliged to abide by the instructions of the Public Prosecution Service within the scope of its duties.” 48. Consequently, the State maintains, the fact that the petitioner was included in the investigation even though he was not named in the police report does not imply a violation of his rights, since the report of the investigations carried out by the National Police serves merely as a reference and does not constitute full evidence against the persons subject to investigation. 49. The State also argues that the fact that the petitioner was granted pre-trial release on bail cannot be taken as proof of his innocence, since the bail order was given because the three elements required by Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not present, and not as a direct consequence of his lack of guilt. 50. Regarding the petitioner’s forced retirement, the State said that it took place in accordance with a procedure governed by the internal laws of the National Police – in particular, Article 32 of the Organic National Police Law – for the purpose of renewing the PNP’s staff. It notes that if his legal situation had been taken into account at that time, then he would have been retired on disciplinary grounds. 51. The State points out that the petitioner does not refer to any legal action he took through administrative channels in pursuit of his reinstatement into active police service. In that regard, it argues that for his reinstatement, he should first have exhausted the available administrative procedures against the National Police of Peru, in accordance with Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 52. In its most recent submission, the State reports that on July 10, 2007, the petitioner’s length of service was recalculated at 36 years, 10 months, and 7 days as of February 7, 2007. 6