73 X ARTICLE 8 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL) Arguments of the Commission 129. The State violated the right to a fair trial embodied in Article 8 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victim, in the trial in the military jurisdiction and the trial in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, because: 129(1) Regarding the trial before the military court a) The violation of the right to a fair trial of the alleged victim “affected presumption of innocence, due process and the right to a defense,” and had a bearing on “the validity of all the evidence collected in this context of violations to her human rights”; b) The trial of civilians by “faceless” military courts violates the right to be tried by an ordinary, competent, independent and impartial judge or court. When the judge’s identity is unknown, “the possibility of determining his independence and impartiality are jeopardized; this was reinforced by the provisions of Article 13(h) of [D]ecree [Law No.] 25,475, which exclude[d] objections to the officials who act[ed] in [these] trials”; c) The exceptional brevity of the trial for the crime of treason, together with the other obstacles imposed on the lawyers, did not allow them to have a reasonable time to prepare an appropriate defense. Lori Berenson was not notified of the charges against her and she found out about them when the first-instance judge delivered judgment. Her lawyer was only “allowed approximately two hours to study a file of approximately 2,000 pages” and he could “never meet with his client freely and confidentially”; d) The evidence collected during both pre-trial investigations, the investigation by the Military Examining Judge and the DINCOTE investigation, “were obtained unlawfully.” The fact that “most of the evidence was collected at the behest of the Military Examining Judge constitute[d] a defect per se that affect[ed] this evidence.” These pieces of elements were incorporated into the DINCOTE police investigation report and assessed in the trial in the military jurisdiction; e) The irregularities that affected the procedures include: “the search of Lori Berenson’s domicile, located at Calle Técnica No. 200, apartment 1101”; and the reconstruction (inspection) of the building at Avenida Alameda del Corregidor No. 1049, Molina la Vieja.” These are “examples of the way evidence was collected […] during the preliminary investigation for the first trial.” Also, the alleged victim was interrogated without the assistance and advice of a lawyer; f) The alleged victim’s defense lawyer “was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the other defendants, such as Miguel Rincón Rincón and Pacífico Abdiel Castrellón, regarding the statements against them concerning criminal acts […], these statements having been obtained […]irregularly in