administration of justice at all levels have an obligation to exercise a “conventional control” ex officio to ensure compatibility between the domestic legal provisions which are applied to specific cases and the American Convention on Human Rights, obviously within the context of their respective jurisdictions and the relevant procedural regulations. In undertaking this task, they must take into account not only the international treaty in question, but also its interpretation by the Inter-American Court, 20 as the final interpreter of the American Convention. 19. This should ensure the strictest diligence in safeguarding conventional guarantees within the domestic sphere. Thus, the Court recalls its considerations regarding the conditions of secrecy and isolation surrounding the procedures in question, which violate the right to the public nature of the proceeding.21 Accordingly, this Court reiterates that the right to a public criminal trial, “except when necessary to safeguard the interests of justice,” “is an essential element of accusatory criminal procedural systems in democratic 22 and has the “function of preventing the administration of justice in secret States,” [and] subjecting it to the scrutiny of the parties and the public [ in order to guarantee] the transparency and impartiality of the decisions to be taken,” thereby promoting 23 confidence in the courts of justice. 20. Furthermore, the Court reiterates its rejection of the criteria of social danger as justification for restricting a person’s rights, particularly their right to due process.24 Likewise, this Court emphasizes that public authorities must diligently uphold the principles of legality in criminal law, right to defense and the duty to guarantee the rights of persons deprived of liberty, within the framework of the Court’s jurisprudence and applicable international law. 21. Bearing in mind the foregoing points, given that eight years has elapsed since the rendering of the Judgment in this case and in the absence of a specific and current dispute between the parties regarding the scope of the reforms ordered, this Court proceeds to conclude the monitoring of compliance with this measure of reparation. The Court points out that although some aspects of the antiterrorist legislation have not been analyzed in the context of this Order, this does not preclude their future analysis in the context of other contentious cases. B) Regarding the obligation to provide adequate and specialized medical care to the victim (Operative paragraph 4 of the Judgment) i) Information presented by the parties 20 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124 and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 222, para. 193. 21 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 10, paras. 172 and 173; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paras. 146 and 147, and Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 5, para. 198. 22 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 5, paras. 198 to 200 and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 167. 23 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribane, supra note 22, para. 168. 24 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paras. 92 to 98. 6