78 159. Principle 36 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment of the United Nations states that: 1. A detained person suspected of or charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent and shall be treated as such until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. 156 […] 160. The Court has pointed out that the principle of presumption of innocence is a tenet of fair trial. In the instant case, said judicial guarantee was not respected by the State. The first instance judgment of September 30, 1994 against Urcesino RamírezRojas dismissed the arguments and the evidence submitted by the latter, pointing out that “the same […] we[re] inadmissible as that[, in reference to his innocence,] [had] not been related [sic] to any other piece of evidence sup[porting] his innocence” (supra para. 97(83)). When presuming the guilt of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas and requesting, in turn, that Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas himself show his innocence, the State violated the right to presumption of innocence as enshrined in Article 8(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. * 161. As pointed out in paragraphs 153 and 154 herein, Article 13(c) of Decree-Law No. 25.475 applied to this case, prevented the exercise of the right to examine the witnesses on whose testimonies the charges against the alleged victim are based. Due to the foregoing, and based on the acknowledgement of the facts prior to 2000, the Court considers that the State has violated Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas. * 162. As to the analysis of the reasonable time in the first proceedings instituted against Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, the Court notes that more than 38 months went by from the arrest of the alleged victim (supra para. 97(70)) until he was convicted in the first instance (supra para. 97(83)), more than 48 months from the arrest until the judgment in the second instance was confirmed (supra para. 97(85)) and more than 8 years in the aggregate from the arrest until the dismissal of the motion for review filed before the Supreme Court of Justice (supra para. 97(86)). As a consequence of the acknowledgement of these facts by the State, the Court considers that such delay per se constituted a violation of the right of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas to be heard within a reasonable time as enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention.157 * 156 U.N., Body of Principles for the Protection of All persons under any form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the General Assembly in its Res/43/173 of December 9, 1988, Principle 36. 157 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 86; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 1, para. 160; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 15, para. 69.