and will then examine (B.2) the alleged violations of due process that are also related to the second stage of the criminal proceedings against Ms. J. The Court will then examine (B.3) the alleged violations of the principle of legality. B.1 Alleged violations of due process in the first stage of the criminal proceedings against Ms. J. 177. Regarding the first stage of the proceedings the Commission and the representative alleged violations of: (B.1.1) the guarantees of competence, independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities who heard the case; (B.1.2) the right to defend oneself; (B.1.3) the right to public proceedings, and (B.1.4) the obligation to provide the reasoning. B.1.1) Guarantees of competence, independence and impartiality of the judicial authorities who heard the case i. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 178. The Commission argued that identity of the judges who acquitted Ms. J. in June 1993 and of those who annulled this acquittal in December 1993, and also of one of the Public Prosecution Service officials was secret based on article 15 of Decree-Law 25,475, which was applicable to the trial of Ms. J. as of May 1992, as was article 13(h) of Decree-Law 25,475 which prohibited filing recusals against judges or court officials during the processing of trials for terrorism. 179. The representative argued that two “faceless” courts had decided the case of the presumed victim. She also indicated that during “the proceedings against J.” after May 1992, “the prosecutor began to sign her reports as a “faceless” prosecutor, by number.” 180. The State argued that “[a]t the beginning of the criminal proceedings, in April 1992, […] the proceedings were processed […] before the Tenth Investigating Court of Lima, which respected her right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial judge.” With regard to the proceedings held before “faceless” judges, the State indicated that “it should be acknowledged that the efforts to investigate and prosecute offenses, including those of a terrorist nature, may expose judges and other participants in the administration of justice to threats to their life or safety,” which “may require the adoption of certain exceptional measures.” Despite this, the State specified that the restriction under Decree-Law No. 25,475 “was fully restored” by Law No 26,671 of 1997, as well as by the judgment of the Constitutional Court of January 3, 2003, and Legislative Decree No. 926. Nevertheless, the State “reject[ed] any observations concerning the presumed violation of the right to an ordinary judge,” because Ms. J. had been prosecuted by courts that were competent to try cases of terrorism, as regulated in the American Convention. ii. Considerations of the Court 181. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 182. This Court has determined that impartiality requires subjective guarantees on the part of the judge, as well as sufficient guarantees of an objective nature to eliminate any doubt that the justiciable or the community may have as regards the absence of impartiality. 290 Thus, the Court 290 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 56, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. 56