E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2 page 17 82. Once the case has been referred to the High Court, the High Court prosecutor may request oral proceedings. If he considers it inappropriate and the Court agrees, the release of the prisoners is ordered. Otherwise, oral proceedings are begun. (iv) Oral proceedings 83. In principle, oral proceedings are public. This is a right protected by article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Terrorism cases were tried in camera, it being understood that they could not last more than 15 consecutive days. Since the suppression of “faceless” judges, the trials are public, but access to the courtroom is difficult. 84. Since the appearance statement is ruled out and proceedings are limited to voice distorters were used in court of the officials who prepared the sworn the appearance of witnesses is restricted, the questioning the accused again; until October 1997, and often did not reflect what the person said. 85. A common complaint is the lack of time to prepare the defence. “I was told on Tuesday at 8 p.m. that the trial was the following day; I did not even manage to read through the case file”, said a lawyer. Another said, “They informed me on the morning of the previous day that the trial would be the following day. I had to share the case notes with four other lawyers. I managed to study a little, but I did not have time to see my client to ask him about what I had read. The trial took place the following morning and, by 12 noon, my client was sentenced to life imprisonment.” There were many testimonies like these. This situation is another cause of “innocent prisoners”. (v) 86. Sentencing The trial ends either with acquittal or conviction. 87. There are also complaints in regard to sentencing. Some sentences do not take account of the accused's defence, but simply repeat the facts contained in the sworn statement, reiterated also by the prosecutor. The examination of a large number of sentences appears to confirm this finding. In the case of Mr. Gutiérrez Vivanco, mentioned above, the sentence takes it for granted that he contributed to the statements made to the police by the people who were arrested with him but whom he had never seen before (sentence of 17 June 1994, upheld by the Supreme Court on 28 February 1995). The defence counsel for Violeta Robles, case No. 40-95, added that the defence was a formality because the sentence had already been prepared and was read out as soon as the pleas had been made. 88. This would appear to be confirmed by the very large number of convictions. According to the prosecutor of Chiclayo High Court, statistics show that, in 1997, the Court convicted 635 persons and acquitted 589.9 89. A member of the Supreme Court told the Working Group that, in Peru, it is not customary explicitly to compare the statements of the prosecution and of the defence, but that judges do consider what is said by both parties.