33 appointed an expert in the case, signed the official report with the test results.93 Also, on October 30, 2001, the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Guayaquil Superior Court of Justice emphasized that the experts who conducted this procedure had not submitted their reports and acknowledged the arguments of the defense lawyers when it stated that: This evidence cannot be granted probative value, because it does not offer due guarantee given that, several days previously, the experts who examined the machines that produce the ice chests and the corresponding molds had manipulated the ice chests provided by CONSEP in which the drugs were found to see if they fitted the PLUMAVIT machines, which would explain why the remains of cocaine contained in them had contaminated the machinery or fallen near the molding machine.94 154. Based on the above, and considering the State’s acquiescence, the Court considers that Ecuador violated the right established in Article 8(2)(c) of the InterAmerican Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo. C) RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE ASSISTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOOSING AND RIGHT TO BE ASSISTED BY COUNSEL PROVIDED BY THE STATE 155. The Commission affirmed that “neither victim had a defense lawyer of his own choosing when the initial interrogation was carried out by the Police and the prosecutor.” Regarding Mr. Chaparro Álvarez, the Commission indicated that, on November 19, 1997, he made a statement in the presence of a friend of the family who was visiting him and who was a lawyer; however, on the express instructions of the Police, the latter was unable to advise him during the interrogation.” 156. During the public hearing before the Court, Mr. Chaparro stated that on November 18, 1997, he was “interrogated without the presence of a lawyer.”95 This interrogation occurred one day before the pre-trial statement made before the Prosecutor. Moreover, Mr. Chaparro indicated that, when presenting his action for juridical protection before the Guayaquil Superior Court (supra para. 132), the President of that court forbade his lawyer to defend him, telling him that he himself had to substantiate his recourse.96 Also, Mr. Lapo stated that, when he made his pre-trial statement, the public defender who had been assigned to him was absent during the interrogation and was only present so that 93 On this point, Article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicated that: The expert report shall contain: (1) The detailed description of what has been inspected, as observed by the expert when carrying out the appraisal; (2) The condition of the person or object, that is the subject of the expert appraisal, before the crime was committed, to the extent possible; […] (5) The final conclusions, the procedure used to reach these conclusions, and the grounds on which they are reached; (6) The date of the report, and (7) The signature and official stamp of the expert. […].” 94 Cf. judgment delivered on October 30, 2001, by the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 21, folios 1078-1079). 95 Cf. Testimony of Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on May 17, 2007. 96 Cf. Testimony of Mr. Chaparro Álvarez at the public hearing, supra note 95.