80 169. On the other hand, on November 3, 2003, the First Special Criminal Court for Terrorism ordered a confrontation between Ramírez-Rojas and Isabel Cristina MorenoTarazona to be conducted on November 24 of that same year (supra para. 97(95)). Said procedure was not carried out within the requested term as, for an alleged “lack of funds,” it was not possible to transfer the alleged victim to from the place where he was detained (supra para. 97(97)). Finally, on April 1, 2004, the above-mentioned confrontation was carried out at Castro-Castro Prison (supra para. 98(102)), more than five months after having been ordered for the first time. 170. During the public hearing of the instant case, the State requested that the Court considered that the case against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was “one of the two thousand cases which were annulled at the same time as part of the same process after the Judgment of the Constitutional Court in 2003.” To that respect, the Court recognizes the difficult circumstances undergone by Peru. However, the conditions of a country, without considering how hard they might be, do not generally release a State Party to the American Convention from the legal obligations set forth in that treaty,159 except in the cases therein established. 171. In light of the foregoing, the Court considers that despite the proven complexity of the new criminal proceedings instituted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas in the instant case, the actions of the competent State authorities have not been compatible with the principle of reasonable time. The Court considers that the State must take into account the time Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas has remained in custody so as to conduct the new proceedings in an efficient way. 172. In view of all the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State has violated, to the detriment of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, the right to be tried within a reasonable time as set forth in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. * * * 173. The Court notes that the other arguments submitted by the Commission and the representatives with respect to Article 8 of the Convention to the detriment of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas relate to issues which shall have to be decided in the new proceedings which are currently pending. As for that matter, the Court considers that it has no jurisdiction to take the place of the national judge in the assessment of the efficiency of the evidence of a particular case.160 174. As previously pointed out, the State “is obliged, by virtue of the general duties to respect the rights and adopt domestic provisions (Articles 1(1) and 2 of the 159 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 1, para. 153; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 118; and Case of BámacaVelásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 207. 160 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 152, para. 174.