76 regard, the Court notes that every defendant has the right to have a public trial.153 150. In this case, the Court remarks that the judgment of January 15, 2003 rendered by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima (Tercera Sala Penal de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima) acknowledged that the proceedings brought against Wilson García-Asto violated fundamental principles such as that of due process; the right to be heard by a competent, independent, and impartial judge; the right to know if the judge was competent; and the right not to be tried by “faceless” judges, and it further declared the first criminal proceeding instituted against him in the ordinary courts for the crime of terrorism against the State to be null (supra para. 97(31)). 151. By virtue of the foregoing, and taking the partial acknowledgment of the facts by the State into account (supra paras. 52 to 60), the Court considers that during the first criminal proceeding instituted against Wilson García-Asto, the State violated the right to a due process of law, to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial judge, and the right to the publicity of the criminal proceedings, according to Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. * 152. The Court has previously remarked that among the prerogatives which must be granted to those who have been accused is the right to examine witnesses against and for them, under the same conditions and with the purpose of exercising their defense.154 153. In the instant case, Article 13(c) of Decree-Law No. 25.475 set forth that “those who by virtue of their official duties participated in the elaboration of the Police Report shall not be proposed as witnesses [d]uring the [i]nvestigation and at the [t]rial.” By virtue of the foregoing, Wilson García-Asto could not examine the police officers who participated in the elaboration of the police reports which were used as grounds for the charges brought against him. 154. The Court considers, as it has done before, and taking into account the acknowledgement of the facts prior to September 2000 by the State, that Article 13(c) of Decree-Law No. 25.475 applied to the instant case, prevented the exercise of the right to examine the witnesses whose testimonies supported the charges against the alleged victim.155 In view of the foregoing, the State has violated Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Wilson García-Asto. * 153 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 152, para. 198; Case of Cantoral-Benavides, supra note 152, paras. 146 and 147; and Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al, supra note 152, para. 172. 154 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 152, para. 184; and Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al, supra note 152, para. 154. 155 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 152, para. 183; and Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al, supra note 152, para. 153.