23. Furthermore, the Court stresses that the public authorities must diligently ensure the principles of criminal legality, the right to defense, and the obligation to guarantee the rights of those deprived of liberty under the Court’s jurisprudence and the relevant international law. In particular, the State must fully guarantee the principles of the public and adversarial nature of the proceedings and immediacy of the evidence, bearing in mind the Court’s jurisprudence, to the effect that the “elements of evidence arising from [a] military trial” are “inadmissible, taking into account the circumstances in which they were produced,”25 and that the imposition of restrictions on the victims’ defense counsel violates the right of the defense to question witnesses and summon people to appear who could shed light on the facts.26 24. Lastly, the Court notes that the information provided by the representatives about the enactment of a new law, Law No. 29.423, derogating Legislative Decree No. 927, and which would affect the access to prison regime benefits for the victims in this case, exceeds the purpose of the obligations that are covered in the monitoring of the judgment. As such, the Court does not consider it relevant to rule on this. 25. Taking the foregoing into consideration, given that 12 years have passed since the judgment in this case was handed down, and that there is no specific and current dispute between the parties concerning the scope of the reforms ordered, the Court will proceed to conclude monitoring compliance with this measure of reparation. The Court highlights that, although some aspects of the anti-terrorist laws have not been examined in the context of this Order, this does not impede future examination in the context of other contentious cases. B) Obligation to find the proceedings against Jaime Francisco Sebastián Castillo Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira Sáez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra, and Alejandro Luis Astorga Valdez invalid, because they were incompatible with the American Convention, and to order that they be guaranteed a new trial with full respect for due process of law (Operative paragraph thirteen of the judgment) 26. Before presenting the information and observations of the parties on compliance with this obligation, the Court finds it relevant to specify the type of violation of judicial guarantees that were declared in the judgment handed down in this case. 27 The Court declared as proven that Jaime Francisco Sebastián Castillo Petruzzi, Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra, María Concepción Pincheira Sáez, and Alejandro Luis Astorga Valdez, Chilean nationals, had been detained on October 14 and 15, 1993, under an operation conducted by the Direccion Nacional contra el Terrorismo [National Anti-Terrorism Directorate] (DINCOTE for its Spanish acronym). The Court ruled on the scope of the codification of the crimes for which the victims were tried and the ambiguity in their formulation, especially as regards treason. In this way, the Court established that the crime of treason was closely linked to the crime of terrorism, as can be inferred from comparing article 2, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), of Decree Law No. 25.659 (crime of treason) and articles 2 and 4 of Decree Law No. 25.475 (crime of terrorism), concluding that the failure to strictly distinguish the criminal actions, “violates the principle of legality established in Article 9 of the American Convention.” 25 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson, supra note 12, para. 174. 26 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 11, para. 155. 27 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 113 to 173. 8