Ratification, as we have seen, frequently caused considerable delay, until the device was invented of ratifying at the time of deposition. When the evidence was thus in proper shape, the next move was its so-called publication. This might or might not be the final step of the prosecution, for it never was precluded from bringing in new evidence, and there might be half a dozen or more successive publications, especially when a group of Judaizers were on trial and they broke down one by one and told what they knew about their associates. The effectiveness of this is illustrated by the case of Engracia Rodríguez at Valladolid, in 1643. After her case had apparently reached its end, the consulta de fe voted her to torture, which was duly administered, without eliciting a confession. Then from time to time came new publications of evidence, until her resolution gave way and, at the seventh publication, eleven months after her torture, she confessed to Judaism. She probably recognized that her kindred and friends were yielding, one after another and incriminating her, and that it was useless to resist longer, with the certainty--of which her advocate doubtless informed her--that persistence would indubitably end in her burning alive as an impenitent _negativa_.[146] As this publication of evidence was the only inkling afforded to the accused of what was the case against him, and as it was assumed to give him ample opportunity of defence, it is worth a little special consideration. We have seen that the pretext of protecting witnesses was held as justifying the suppression of their names and of all circumstances that might lead to their identification. Even under the most rigid construction, this crippled greatly the defence, but rigid construction of their powers was not common among the tribunals. When once it was admitted that portions of the evidence could lawfully be suppressed, the selection of what should be made known became largely discretional.