In order to clarify whether the State violated its international obligations owing to acts of its judicial organs, the Court and the Commission may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings. In light of the above, the domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole, including the rulings of the appellate courts. The role of the international court is to establish whether the proceedings as a whole, as well as the way evidence was incorporated, were in accordance with the Convention. 155 179. In light of the petitioner’s allegations, the Commission shall rule on the following points pertaining to the proceedings against Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles: i) the rule on the exclusion of evidence obtained through coercion; ii) right to a defense; iii) principle of presumption of Innocence; iv) principle of the “presumption of innocence” and v) the relief sought in the criminal proceedings. 1. Rule on the exclusion of evidence obtained through coercion 180. The Inter-American Court has recognized that the rule on exclusion of evidence obtained by torture or cruel and inhuman treatment has been enshrined in several different international instruments156 and human rights protection bodies,157 as has the “absolute and inderogable nature” of that rule.158 181. held that: In the IACHR Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Mexico (1998), the Commission has In the case of a statement or testimony in which there is a well-founded suspicion or presumption that it was obtained by some type of coercion, be it physical or psychological, the judicial bodies must […] determine whether such coercion did actually exist. In the event that a statement or testimony obtained in these circumstances is admitted and used during the trial as an element of evidence or proof, that State may incur international responsibility.159 182. Likewise, the Inter-American Court has explained that because there is a guaranteed right not to be forced to confess without coercion of any nature as established under Article 8.3 of the Convention, “annulment of procedural documents resulting from torture or cruel treatment is an effective measure to halt 155 IA Court of HR, Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 142; IA Court of HR, Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 133; IA Court of HR, Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 200; and IA Court of HR, Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120. 156 Article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment establishes that “Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.” Likewise, Article 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture sets forth that “No statement that is verified as having been obtained through torture shall be admissible as evidence in a legal proceeding, except in a legal action against a person or persons accused of having elicited it through acts of torture, and only as evidence that the accused obtained such statement by such means.” 157 In this regard, the Committee against Torture has held that “the obligations in Articles 2 (whereby no exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as justification of torture’), 15 (prohibiting confessions extorted by torture being admitted in evidence, except against the torturer), and 16 (prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) are three such provisions that must be observed in all circumstances.” See United Nations. Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 2, ‘Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties,’ January 24, 2008 (CAT/C/GC/2), para. 6. Likewise, the Human Rights Committee has held the following: “The guarantees of fair trial may never be made subject to measures of derogation that would circumvent the protection of non-derogable rights. (…) no statements or confessions or, in principle, other evidence obtained in violation of this provision may be invoked as evidence in any proceedings covered by Article 14, including during a state of emergency, except if a statement or confession obtained in violation of Article 7 is used as evidence that torture or other treatment prohibited by this provision occurred.” United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (vol. I), par 6. 158 IA Court of HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. México. Supervision of Compliance with Judgment. Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 21, 2013, para. 165. 159 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Mexico, Chapter IV: Right to Humane Treatment, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.100, Doc. 7. rev. 1, September 24, 1998, para. 320. 42