E/CN.4/1999/63/Add.2 page 25 132. The vagueness of some of the criminal laws analysed and the offences referred to in the 1998 laws is a serious violation of the principle of legality. 3. The right to a public trial 133. As stated in paragraphs 83 and 84, the right to a public trial, as provided for in article 14 of the Covenant, is being violated. Moreover, in the military courts, it is very difficult to become acquainted with the text of sentences, since these are read out and copies can be obtained only occasionally. 134. However, there is no doubt that it was the institution of anonymous judges that in the past most flagrantly violated this principle, as reflected in paragraphs 65 to 67 of this report, and as dealt with by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers in paragraph 73 of his report. 4. The right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal 135. This right has been seriously jeopardized as a result of the dismissal of judges and prosecutors and their replacement by individuals appointed by the executive branch immediately following the 5 April 1992 coup, and especially by the lack of irremovability of provisional and substitute judges and the fact that challenges are prohibited by law. 136. Judges, especially military judges, show partiality in the treatment of accused persons. The Working Group believes that judges must limit themselves to the evaluation of facts and the application of the law, without displaying personal feelings. This principle is not respected where a judgement states that the accused “has cynically denied the facts presented in these proceedings” (Navy examining magistrate PL-10005000, case No. 009-TP-94-LC of 24 June 1994). It was also not an impartial judge who said that lawyer Ramón Landauro “has admitted self-confidently that he cannot explain why his name appears in this list, cynically stating that ...”. 5. The right to be presumed innocent 137. The presumption of innocence, which is protected under article 2, paragraph 24, of the Constitution, is not rigorously applied. The judgement handed down by the Lima High Court on 20 October 1994 (case No. 95-94) states that the accused cannot be released, as “there is no substantive evidence to prove that she is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt ...”. It is not often that such harsh sentences are handed down, but the lawyers interviewed indicated that there often is “natural animosity” towards persons accused of terrorist offences. 138. The presumption of innocence is also violated if prisoners are displayed to the press wearing prison clothes and carrying degrading posters when they are being transferred to court, a practice which is prohibited under Decree 01/95, except in the case of the leaders of terrorist organizations.