Official Newspaper, which established that the Supreme Court can only confirm or reduce a sentence imposed on a convicted individual.145. Moreover, Law 27454 set forth its retroactive application for individuals who had been given a more serious sentence by that court.146 169. Consequently, on September 28, 2001, Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’s sentence was modified ex officio by the Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of San Martín, reducing it to the original six years imposed.147 Moreover, there is evidence that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio remained in custody for four years and six months only; he did not reach the six years initially imposed by the Mixed Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of San Martín.148 Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the alleged violation of lack of grounds of the judgment of June 19, 1997, of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had ceased and that reparation was subsequently provided by means of the order of September 28, 2001. Therefore, in application of the aforementioned principle of complementarity, the Court considers that the State is not responsible for the violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention. B.2. Right to be assisted by legal counsel provided by the State and the right to defend oneself (Articles 8(2)(e) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention) B.1.3 Arguments of the Commission and the parties 170. The Commission claimed that in the investigation by the Inspectorate both the alleged victim and his superior, who accused him of committing irregularities in the exercise of his functions as Chief of the Leoncio Prado Detachment, gave their statements under the same legal counsel/advisor, JRH, who was appointed by the State. It noted that the statements given by Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio and his superior were particularly relevant within the framework of the investigation by the Inspectorate and in the disciplinary proceedings, and that these parties had contrary interests. Consequently, it claimed that the State of Peru violated Articles 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention. 171. The representative noted that joint legal counsel for the prosecutor and the accused is inadequate, given that the parties have contrary interests. Moreover, it agreed with the Commission and highlighted that the participation of that specific legal counsel as a judge in the military proceedings further demonstrates that the alleged victim did not have access to adequate legal counsel, considering that said individual was hierarchically and professionally connected to the military authorities. Consequently, these situations affected Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’s right to defend himself and, since it was an individual appointed by the State, it violates not only Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention but also Article 8(2)(e) thereof. 172. The State observed that the statement given by Colonel M (hierarchical superior of the alleged victim) does not demonstrate that he also received assistance from JRH. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the opposing party were to prove that JRH intervened in the statement of both persons (Colonel M and Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio), it is worth noting that the presence of an attorney during statements seeks to protect their guarantees. Moreover, it was not confirmed that the legal counsel acted in the disciplinary proceedings providing arguments for or against either Cf. Law No. 27454 “Amendment Law to Article 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” published in the “El Peruano” Official Newspaper of May 24, 2001. “Article 300.- If an appeal for annulment is filed by one or several convicted individuals, the Supreme Court can only confirm or reduce the sentence imposed and adjudge on the subject matter of the appeal. Sentences that have not been annulled can only be modified when it is favorable to the sentenced individuals […].” 146 Cf. Law No. 27454 “Amendment Law to Article 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” published in the “El Peruano” Official Newspaper of May 24, 2001. Exclusive clause.- This law will apply retroactively, in conformity with that set forth in Article 103, paragraph 2, of the Political Constitution and Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code. For these purposes, convicted individuals who were given a more serious sentence can request the adjustment of that sentence to the instance that issued the appealed decision. The sentence will be adjusted to that established in first instance […].” 147 Cf. Order of the Judge of Mixed First Instance of September 28, 1994 (evidence file, folios 3246 and 3247). 148 According to the information submitted by the Commission, the representative and the State, Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was imprisoned until March 4, 1999, when he obtained the benefit of study or work release. 145 39