216. The Commission argued that, in the instant case, “none of the stages of the proceedings was made public,” and a public hearing was not held, because article 13(f) of Decree-Law 25,475, established that the trial should be held in private hearings, in violation of Article 8(5) of the Convention. The representative did not refer to this alleged violation. For its part, the State argued that “the criminal prosecution of presumed perpetrators of terrorist offenses was, in the opinion of the State, an exceptional circumstance that justified the confidential nature of the proceedings, because this was required by national security and the protection of the rights of the prosecutors and judges involved in the proceedings” and others who intervened. Peru argued that “the central purpose of publicity is access to the proceedings by the parties and even by third parties,” while “in the hearings held in relation to the proceedings against J., the parties, in particular, her defense counsel,” were present. Lastly, the State indicated that “[a] hearing held before a ‘faceless’ court is null and void in itself, because the identity of the judges is unknown, regardless of whether it was confidential.” ii. Considerations of the Court 217. The guarantee that proceedings shall be public established in Article 8(5) of the Convention is an essential element of the system of criminal procedure in a democratic State and is guaranteed by holding an oral stage in which the accused is able to have direct access to the judge and the evidence and which provides access to the public. 326 Hence, the secret administration of justice is prohibited, subjecting it to the scrutiny of the parties and of the public, and relates to the need for the transparency and impartiality of the decisions taken. In addition, this guarantee is a mechanism that promotes trust in the courts of justice. The public nature of proceedings refers specifically to access to information on the proceedings by the parties and even third parties. 327 218. Article 13(f) of Decree-Law No. 25,475 established that: Once the trial has commenced, it shall be held in private hearings on a consecutive daily basis until its conclusion, within 15 natural days at the most, when the judgment shall be handed down in accordance with the rules of the Third Volume of the Code of Criminal Procedures, as applicable. 328 219. In previous cases with regard to Peru, this Court has established that the said provision of Decree-Law 25,475 infringes the guarantee of the public nature of the proceedings. 329 In the instant case, as revealed by the text of the law and of the records of the hearings that appear in the case file, the hearings during the first stage of the proceedings against Ms. J. were held in private. 330 Furthermore, the lawyer, Emma Vigueras, indicated that “access to the case file was restricted even for the lawyers. There was a special Secretariat for this type of case and the only way to obtain access was by bribing those in charge of the custody of those documents.” 331 220. Article 8(5) of the American Convention requires that criminal proceedings shall be public, 326 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 172, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 167. 327 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, paras. 167 and 168. 328 Decree-Law No. 25,475 of May 5, 1992, Article 13(f) (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 7, folio 3262). 329 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 172; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 146; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 73.4; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 198, and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, supra, para. 149. 330 Cf. Record of the hearing of May 19, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 19, folios 4753 to 4756); record of the hearing of June 2, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 20, folios 4758 to 4767); record of the hearing of June 7, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 21, folios 4769 to 4784), and record of the hearing of June 9, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 22, folios 4786 to 4796). 331 Sworn statement made by Emma Vigueras on May 15, 2000 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, annex 2, folio 3011). 65