11 would remove from its venue the vast majority of matters heard by the international court. XII. Defense 47. Defense of the accused continues to be in a predicament. As far as I know, there is no domestic legal order that does not stipulate his right to defense against the charges against him, as well as the right to have legal counsel to assist him in the difficult period of prosecution, when his most valued interests are at stake. This is, even, a personage that integrates, as has been said, the procedural personality of the accused. Yet numerous cases that have been heard by the Court (and thousands more awaiting their turn: not to come before the inter-American court, but to benefit, through domestic legal systems and venues, from the progress set forth in international instruments) in which there has been no defense at all, or it has been nominal: distant and foreign to the accused, inactive, indifferent, or lacking a real possibility and genuine opportunities to fulfill a mission that is recognized, but not fostered. 48. Reform of the proceeding, based on the requirements of the national Constitutions and of international instruments, and providing full access to justice, must establish a true and effective defense system that strives to ensure the rights of the accused, with the same perseverance and consistency that Inhering recommends that we struggle for the law. Otherwise, of what use is this auxiliary means of the accused, which is also, in the best sense, an auxiliary to justice? This urges us to move toward new means to ensure access to justice. Traditional court-appointed counsel -usually overloaded with cases and with officials whose work conditions are not always, or are only rarely, appropriate to effectively carry out their responsibilitycan hardly be sufficient. The problems of court-appointed counsel have been evident in several cases brought before the Inter-American Court. 49. Having an appointed counsel does not, in itself, ensure defense during the prosecution. This has been noted, very often, in the proceedings before this Court. If it is not, then, just any –nominal- defense, bur rather true defense –as the satisfaction of any human right should be-, we should specify its characteristics, which would require independence, sufficiency, competence, gratuitousness, completeness and timeliness, and provide the means for it to exist. Otherwise, protection of the human rights of the accused will, once and again, stumble on the deficiencies of the defense, ultimately reflected in violation of the law, poorly disguised by apparent exercise of this right, one that does not stand up to even the slightest analysis. XIII. Sufficient evidence 50. Another point that stands out in the Judgment to which I attach this Opinion is what we might call “sufficient evidence.” I do not confuse probatory sufficiency for an arrest warrant with that for a definitive judgment, respectively. Obviously there is a difference. Nevertheless, all acts that involve an exercise of State power and procedural and/or criminal restriction of liberty must be based on “sufficient evidence.” There can be no action without any evidence, and there should be no action based on weak evidence. Procedural law must emphasize this point, taking into account that, clearly, the proceeding is a probatory channel and its results depend on gathering, admission, and assessment of evidence. There can be no issue more delicate than this one as regards legislators’ reflection and justices’ performance. 51. Confession –whose excessive credence fosters torture; we see this in the instant case- was once seen as the “queen of evidence.” Fortunately, that is no longer so. Yet still today certain legal systems –or certain investigative and procedural