236. In the proceedings against Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe the identity of certain witnesses was kept secret during the two stages, and even in the plenary proceedings, the defense did not have access to all the proceedings, because secret files were established. The corresponding measures were based on the mere citing of the norms applied, without any specific grounds in relation to the case in question.261 2. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 237. The Commission alleged the violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument with regard to Messrs. Norín Catrimán, Pichún Paillalao and Ancalaf Llaupe, citing case law of the European Court of Human Rights in this regard. It argued that the justification for exceptional measures, such as the anonymity of deponents in criminal proceedings, arises from the nature of a certain kind of case and to the extent that the life and personal integrity of the deponents may be at risk; nevertheless, they should be “counterbalanced by other measures […] so as to compensate for the handicap under which the defense is laboring.” Regarding the proceedings against Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe, it affirmed that the testimony of anonymous witnesses was received during an inquisitorial proceeding that “was kept secret for most of the investigation,” so that it was not possible to examine these witnesses when they were giving their testimony. It added that, even though the testimony of these witnesses was assessed together with other evidence, they were “decisive” in establishing the existence of the offenses and the responsibility of the defendants. It considered that “the restrictions to the right of defense […] were not sufficiently counterbalanced by other measures in the proceedings that would have offset the handicap that the anonymity caused for the defense.” 238. The FIDH stated that Chile had “violated the right of defense of the Lonkos Aniceto Norín and Pascual Pichún, specifically their right to examine the witnesses present in the court under Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument.” They asserted that the new criminal procedural system established witness protection mechanisms “other than the ‘faceless’ witnesses” established in the Counter-terrorism Act, which was applied in the case of Messrs. Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao. They indicated that it was very serious that the secret identity regime ensures “the impunity [of the] witness who does not tell the truth and prevents crossexamination.” It stated that the refusal to lift the anonymity in the case of one of these witnesses was a “strategy” to ensure that he could “lie with impunity.” It asserted that “no measure was taken to counterbalance the anonymous witnesses,” even though, “during the second trial, an attempt was made to rectify the violation of due process committed in the first trial that was annulled, [and in which] it had been totally prohibited to give out the names of the [anonymous] witnesses, and their identity had only been revealed to the lawyers with the express prohibition to advise the Lonkos of their names.” It alleged that the right to carry out a “genuine cross-examination” was curtailed, since “it was not permitted to ask questions that would make it possible to infer the identity of the witness.” It also affirmed that Law No. 18,314 does not establish that this measure is exceptional; it merely defends the need for it based on the severity of the offenses presumably committed, which constitutes a “circular argument.” It also stated that this measure is not subject to judicial control and that the witnesses could come forward to testify with illegitimate interests owing to the authorization under Law 18,314 that they can be paid sums of money. 239. CEJIL affirmed that Chile had violated Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Ancalaf Llaupe, within a broader argument on the “access to an effective 261 Cf. Judicial file of the domestic criminal proceedings held against Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe (file of annexes to the CEJIL motions and arguments brief, annex A, folios 1203, 1204, 1235, 1236, 1246, 1435, 1444 to 1446, 1455, 1461 and 1477 to 1482). 84