petitioner on July 2, 2012. The petitioner submitted additional observations on August 1, 2012. In turn, the State sent its additional observations on May 21, 2013. These observations were duly transmitted to the other party. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 7. By a resolution dated October 28, 1999, the Oral Juvenile Court No. 1 of Buenos Aires sentenced Mr. Álvarez to life imprisonment for two aggravated murders, four armed robberies and the theft of three vehicles in the City of Buenos Aires. In the petition it is argued that the proceedings did not abide by the right to due process, and that the alleged victim’s defender filed several remedies to challenge the violations of due process, which the judicial authorities rejected due to strictly formal aspects. 8. More specifically, the petitioner argues that on September 22, 1999 it was decided that the hearing would be held at the Oral Juvenile Court No. 1, which had heard the alleged victim’s criminal case. The petitioner says that due to the complexity of the matter, the preliminary hearing was to take place on October 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27 and 29 of that same year. She argues that on October 8 Mr. Álvarez revoked the power of attorney previously granted to his counsels, and requested enough time to name a new counsel. The petitioner alleges that the court dismissed the request and that, on the same date that the hearing began, it appointed the Deputy Public Defender to legally represent the alleged victim. She says that the public defender requested a postponement of the trial until October 19, 1999 to be able to prepare an adequate defense strategy, but that the request was rejected. The petitioner alleges that consequently, Mr. Álvarez’s rights to legal representation in trial and to due process were violated. 9. According to the petitioner, the facts tend to establish a violation of the right set forth in Article 8.2 (c) of the American Convention, since she argues that the appointment of a defender who ignored the criminal case against the alleged victim, on the date that the proceedings began –which by then was of ‘sixteen volumes, each of which with 200 pages, and numerous accumulated files’– did not allow the accused to have adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense. 10. In addition, she alleges violations of the right set forth in Article 8.2 (d) of the American Convention, as the Oral Juvenile Court No. 1 denied Mr. Álvarez the right to name a defense counsel of his own choosing but assigned him a public defender instead. On top of this, the public defender had her first communication with the accused “after the hearing had begun, and at her request to postpone the hearing so that the accused could communicate freely and privately with her, the Court rejected her request, in violation of the conventional right invoked.” 11. Moreover, she alleges violations of the rights set forth in Articles 8.1 and 8.2 (g) and (f) of the American Convention, since the way in which the defender was appointed legal representative did not allow her to prepare a proper examination of the witnesses and expert witnesses summoned, in accordance with the interests of the alleged victim. She argues that the accused’s right to be heard and to provide material defense were violated, since the accused lacked adequate time to prepare his preliminary examination statement with the assistance of his counsel, and since the request to postpone the hearing was rejected. The petitioner argues that the official defender was made to legally represent Mr. Álvarez when she ignored the accused’s account of facts but knew the account given by the co-accused in the same proceedings, as she had been counsel for the latter. Consequently, when it was time for her to examine the witnesses and expert witnesses, there was the risk of asking questions that could have been detrimental to Mr. Álvarez. 12. The petitioner also alleges the violation of the right set forth in Article 11.1 of the American Convention, since the alleged victim was handcuffed throughout the hearing, which she says violates the principle of presumption of innocence and Mr. Álvarez’s personal dignity. Likewise, it is argued that with the handcuffs on, the accused could not take down notes of the events in the proceedings. In the framework of the appeal and the complaint appeal filed, the defense said that any attempt to run away was impossible; for it was not a public trial and there were special police forces. 2