judge even went to Puerto Bolívar, the scene of the events. The State contradicted the Commission’s assertions and insisted that Mr. Grijalva Bueno was legally and correctly notified of all the judicial proceedings through his defense attorney, which could be verified in the documentary evidence presented by the State. In addition, it denied that Mr. Grijalva Bueno testified only once in the course of the proceedings, since during the summary stage the investigating judge ordered various evidentiary procedures to be carried out, such as taking the preliminary statement of Mr. Grijalva Bueno, who also made a statement under oath during the trial stage. It concluded that the military criminal proceedings were conducted in accordance with pre-existing legal norms. A.1.2. Right to examine witnesses 90. Regarding the right to examine witnesses, the Commission considered that the testimonies of GR and RG - who initially denounced the alleged unlawful acts committed by Mr. Grijalva Bueno - were given without the presence or participation of his defense attorney. It recalled that the right to examine witnesses may be restricted in exceptional circumstances, something that was not alleged by the State in this case. The State did not comment specifically, but merely indicated that statements had been taken in Puerto Bolívar, the location where the events took place. A.1.3. Scope of the presumption of innocence and the duty to state the grounds for a decision 91. The Commission pointed out that, despite the presentation of evidentiary elements, mainly exculpatory, the court handed down a conviction against Mr. Grijalva Bueno without assessing said evidence in light of the principle of presumption of innocence. The conviction did not substantiate the reasons why such evidence should not be taken into account in order to acquit Mr. Grijalva Bueno.85 The reasoning of the judgment is essential to understand whether the treatment of the evidence in the domestic jurisdiction was compatible with that principle. It also argued that the conviction “was based exclusively on the report of the commission of the General Inspectorate of the Navy, which was taken up by the prosecutor in the case, despite the fact that, […] one of its authors indicated that the facts were not verified” and mentioned several irregularities with respect to that document, “including […] acts of torture and coercion against various persons who testified against Mr. Grijalva [, which] were not examined by the court [and that] full validity was accorded to those statements, [nor] was any measure adopted in light of the standards related to the exclusionary rule.” 92. The State argued that the documentary evidence presented by Ecuador shows that the decisions of the military jurisdiction contain a clear description of the facts and their connection with the evidence presented during the proceedings, and are consistent with the criminal law through a reasoned argument, which corresponds to the parameters established by the Court. Regarding the lack of reasoning, the State argued that the alleged victim expressed a subjective assessment by stating that the military justice system prevented the guilty from being tried and that, in this way, it encouraged impunity. It disputed the Commission's claim that Mr. Grijalva’s conviction was based exclusively on the report of the commission of the Inspector General's Office of the The Commission noted that in the conviction the court considered that Mr. Grijalva Bueno “has made […] assertions about the facts investigated in this process, without bothering to demonstrate them in the current proceedings, in order to exclude or attenuate his responsibility.” Therefore it considered that “the language used by the court inverts the burden of proof in the sense of placing the responsibility for proving his innocence on Mr. Grijalva Bueno, which also contravenes the principle of presumption of innocence.” 85 24