77 ii) Second proceedings instituted against Wilson García-Asto 155. With respect to the second proceedings instituted against Wilson García-Asto, the representatives pointed out that, as they were not served notice of the judgment of August 5, 2004 which acquitted the alleged victim (supra para. 97(47)), this having been read only “in a public act” on the date it was issued, the alleged victim’s counsel, in the domestic jurisdiction, could not refer to said document at the time of presenting his oral and written arguments before the Supreme Court on February 7 2005, in relation with the appeal for annulment filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against the above-mentioned acquittal (supra paras. 97(49) and 97(50)). This situation was not contested by the State. In this regard, the Court considers that said conduct violated the right to defense and the right to be heard, with the due guarantees, by a competent judge or court, as enshrined in Article 8(1) and 8(2), subparagraph (c) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. * 156. The Court does not consider it necessary to give an opinion with respect to the other arguments submitted by the Commission and the representatives on the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention regarding the production and assessment of the evidence in the second proceedings instituted against Wilson García-Asto, as the violation of his rights has not been proven. b) Regarding the alleged violations of Article 8 to the detriment of Urcesino RamírezRojas 157. Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas was convicted on September 30, 1994 by the Special Criminal Chamber for Terrorism of the Superior Court of Lima (Sala Penal Especializada de Terrorismo de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima), a court composed of “faceless” judges, according to Article 15, subparagraph (1) of Decree-Law No. 25.475 (supra para. 97(83)). Said judgment was confirmed on August 8, 1995 by the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru (Corte Suprema de Justicia del Perú), which was also made up of “faceless” judges (supra para. 97(85)). The hearings held during said proceedings were not open to the public. On May 13, 2003, the National Chamber for Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo) declared the nullity of the proceedings instituted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas by judges with secret identity (supra para. 97(90)). 158. By virtue of the foregoing, taking the above-mentioned considerations into account (supra para. 149), as well as the partial acknowledgement of the facts by the State (supra paras. 52 to 60), the Court considers that during the first criminal proceedings instituted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, the State violated the right to a due process; to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial judge; and to the publicity of the criminal proceedings, according to the provisions of Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. *