42 clothing, as the perpetrator of the crime of treason against the fatherland, before he had been legally tried or convicted (supra para. 63.i.).61 120. The principle of presumption of innocence, as stated in Article 8(2) of the Convention, demands that a person cannot be convicted unless there is clear evidence of his criminal liability. If the evidence presented is incomplete or insufficient, he must be acquitted, not convicted. 121. In the criminal proceedings against Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, full evidence of his liability was not presented; nonetheless, the judges in the regular courts sentenced him to 20 years in prison. This situation was expressly recognized by the State, as can be seen in Supreme Decision No. 078-97-JUS, of June 24, 1997, which was added to the file by the State, and says textually: HAVING SEEN: The application presented by Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides and Report No. 127-97/CAH, prepared by the ad hoc Commission created under Law No. 26.655, in which a pardon is recommended; WHEREAS: Under Law No. 26.655, an ad hoc Commission was created to study cases and propose that the President of the Republic, in exceptional situations, grant a pardon and act of grace, to persons who have been convicted of terrorism or treason against the fatherland on the basis of insufficient evidence which enables the Commission to assume, reasonably, that they had no link to terrorist elements, activities or organizations; and Since the application of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides falls within the scope of Article 1 of Law No. 26.655, the members of the aforementioned ad hoc Commission have unanimously recommended that Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides be granted a pardon; Pursuant to Article 118, subsection 21) of the Peruvian Constitution, it is the prerogative of the President of the Republic to grant pardons; IT IS RESOLVED: Article one. To grant a PARDON to LUIS ALBERTO CANTORAL-BENAVIDES, who is in the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Be it known, (in italics outside the text) 122. Consequently, the Court considers that the State violated, to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, Article 8(2) of the American Convention. Violation of Article 8(2)c), d) and f) of the Convention to prepare a proper defense to choose a lawyer to question witnesses 123. As regards the violation of Article 8(2)c), d) and f) of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) The Peruvian State violated Article 8(2)c) of the American Convention, mentioning in support of this claim, “inter alia the limited communication between Luis Alberto [Cantoral-Benavides] and his defense lawyers and the failure to notify them of resolutions and procedural matters.” Also, it referred to the difficulties faced by lawyers in gaining access to the file; to the material aspects of communication between the accused and his lawyers; and to the fact that the judges in charge of the military trial wore field uniforms, side 61 Loayza-Tamayo Case, supra note 12, para. 46.d.