72 e) “The indictments, the reports to move to oral proceedings or the lists of charges and the condemnatory judgments passed by “faceless” courts against Wilson García-Asto and Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas were based on the evidence provided by the police reports issued by the DINCOTE;” f) In the first instance judgment of September 30, 1994 against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, the violation of the right to presumption of innocence of the alleged victim becomes evident “as it dismisses the arguments and the evidence asserted by the counsel, stating that “the same... become nonadmissible as that [referring to his innocence] has not been related (sic) to any other piece of evidence showing his innocence;” g) In the prosecutions to which the alleged victims were subjected, “the counsel did not have the chance to examine the police officers who participated in the elaboration of the police reports which were used as the basis for justifying the charges against him, as [Article 13(c) of Decree-Law No. 25.475] set forth that the police officers who made and wrote them were exempted from appearing in the proceeding;” h) The alleged victims were tried at closed hearings, in violation of the right set forth in Article 8(5) of the American Convention; i) When construing Article 8 of the Convention “it must be understood that the right to a fair trial recognized in Article 139(5) of the Peruvian Constitution encompasses the right of the persons under the jurisdiction of the State of Peru to a reasoned judgment which includes its arguments of fact;” j) In the first proceedings instituted against the alleged victims “the right to presumption of innocence was violated with respect to the evidence used to convict [them]; which is relevant in the new proceedings;” k) “In the new trial, the gathering of all the evidence for the prosecution and for the defense was not ordered, as if commencing the summary proceedings again. That would have been necessary to correct all the procedural errors which had vitiated the original proceedings before the ‘faceless’ judges;” l) “The court has incurred significant delay in the execution of some evidence-related proceedings [,for instance], [t]he confrontation of [Urcesino] Ramírez-Rojas with his co-defendant [Ms.] Moreno-Tarazona;” m) It was not possible to access the memory of the computer seized from Wilson García-Asto in the new proceeding, “as it was broken due to humidity and lack of use. The police report on the analysis of those documents did not appear either;” n) In the case of Wilson García-Asto “[t]he manipulation of evidence as well as the non-existence of the police reports which were used as a basis to describe the alleged seized documents as “subversive,” show a violation of the custody chain that any judicial officer is obliged to observe in order to preserve the evidence during the proceeding;” and