E/CN.4/1992/52 page 24 on finding the main door open and the house in darkness. The shrine in the chapel had been moved from its place, the religious community's three files had been forced open and the papers were scattered over the floor. A packet containing the sum of 40,000 colones intended for assistance to the poor had disappeared. The dormitories were in a state of disorder and the nuns' clothing had been turned upside down, including their work clothes in the garage. The cupboards had been thoroughly searched and their contents taken out and scattered about the floor. On the same day a vehicle was observed passing by the house of the Little Community, and two rifle muzzles were seen pointing out of the window at the Little Community. There were also other incidents which made the nuns fear for their lives and safety." 36. On 5 December 1991 the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations Office at Geneva transmitted the following response to the above-mentioned allegations. "The Salvadorian system of criminal procedure is fundamentally based on proceedings consisting of two phases: (a) an investigation phase, and (b) an adversarial phase, the two forming a single process. During the investigation, the necessary actions and procedures are performed to establish the existence of the offence, to find out who is or are responsible and to discover circumstances affecting the criminal liability of the accused (Criminal Procedure, art. 115). The adversarial phase varies depending on the penalty provided by law for each act classed as a crime. The particular case of the Jesuits is being dealt with in ordinary proceedings, in which the adversarial phase began with the 'decision to send the case for trial'. The essential aspect of this phase is the public hearing before a jury court. This court is regulated by the Constitution (art. 189) and will consist of five persons appointed as jurors (Criminal Procedure, art. 315), who have to be over the age of 21, to be in full possession of their civil and political rights, to know how to read and write, to be of good conduct and to have a recognized profession, art, office or occupation (Criminal Procedure, art. 318). In this particular case the jury was made up of three men and two women, who met all these requirements and had been selected by the proper legal process (Criminal Procedure, art. 345). This court is required to deliberate and reach a finding on the guilt or innocence of the accused, and its decision is embodied in an instrument known as the verdict, which is based on the conscience and inner conviction of the members of the jury. This means that the assessment of the evidence is made in accordance with their inner conviction; the law does not require them to state how they have arrived at that conviction, nor does it lay down rules for determining whether the evidence is sufficient. The law merely asks them to ponder the matter themselves, in silence and tranquillity, seeking to let their consciences speak and to determine the impression made on their minds by the evidence produced for and against the accused. That is why the law does not ask them 'would you say this was true?', but 'have you an inner conviction?1 (Criminal Procedure, arts. 347 and 363).