6 subsequent trial on the same facts and against the same persons would not amount to a second trial nor would it disregard the ne bis in idem principle. 22. Naturally, this issue is not closed. It is still necessary to advance carefully and reflectively into the various hypotheses which might be formulated on the attainment of double jeopardy. It is to be assessed, as objectively and wisely as possible, whether it is necessary to disregard a final judgment, apparently unappealable, and so set aside the ne bis in idem principle, or whether to preserve the acknowledgment thereof —which is a powerful guarantee— on the basis that the proceedings instituted and the judgment rendered therein do not amount to actual proceedings and to a true and genuine judgment. F) PUBLIC NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLICATION OF JUDGMENT The public nature of the acts of trial in open court, one of which is the judgment, is a feature inherent to the due process of the law in a democratic society. There are quite many international instruments which refer to “fair trial” and “public hearing” within the same expression. The objective sought is to incorporate the eyes and ears of the people into the trial —notwithstanding their intervention in the trial itself, as is the case of trial by jury—, which becomes a democratic guarantee of the correct operation of justice. Public observation reinforces the proper fulfillment of the jurisdictional function, provided that the judge concentrates only on the facts and the law, which should never be “re-read” under the public pressure, and responds only to his reason and his conscience. This is another one of the important issues regarding the administration of justice in a democratic society, one which is always extensively discussed, but never adequately resolved in practice. The Inter-American Court frequently orders the publication of the judgments it has rendered as a redress measure, either to satisfy the victim’s right or to create social hindrances to the possible repetition of conducts which are violations of human rights. Thus, the publication of the judgment serves a double purpose: an individual one and a social one, both rooted in the specific case. On several opportunities the Court has stated that the declaratory and condemnatory judgment is in itself a redress of grievances. Its reparatory effectiveness is extended when it becomes generally known due to the reasonable publicity thereof, the characteristics of which are defined by the Court itself. It thus brings about a kind of vindication of the victim in a society which might have once considered the behavior of the authorities to be legitimate. In other words, “things go back to normal”, the truth is proven in the case, and “each one is given his due” with the people watching. And all this is quite important. 25. It is also important that publication be made in such a way as to achieve the aims sought, which are invariably favorable to the cause of justice in general and of the justice awarded the particular victim. Therefore, it is advisable that the Court analyze, as it has, the details of the publication ordered. It is necessary to prevent this means from being used to “victimize the victim once more”, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the characteristics of the victim’s environment, his future life, the need to create conditions which favor it and which reduce the negative consequences —most of them, psychological— of the violation committed. At times the detailed dissemination of the facts does not contribute to the victim’s future welfare. Finally, what is important is to put on record that there has been an unacceptable violation of an individual right and that, therefore, the State has been found internationally liable. Obviously, this does not mean concealing facts, which are recorded in the proceedings and therefore can be accessed by any person who is interested in the case. It means doing what is