50 forth that the Public Attorneys must perform their duties with organic dependency, such circumstance does not necessarily entail in itself a violation of the Convention. 165. In its turn, the Court underscores that the principle of legality ruling the acts performed by public officials, which governs the activities of Public Attorneys, imposes on them the obligation to carry out their duties acting on the basis of the regulations defined in Constitution and statute. That way, prosecutors must watch for the law to be correctly applied and seek the truth of the facts as they are, acting professionally, loyally and in good faith, considering both the elements that prove the existence of the crime and the participation of the person charged with such crime, as well as the elements that may extinguish or extenuate the criminal responsibility of the accused. 166. In the instant case, it was not been proven that the prosecutors acting in the proceedings conducted against Mr. Tristán Donoso acted in response to their individual interests, upon motives alien to the law, or that they based their decisions on instructions imparted by senior officials that ran contrary to the applicable legal provisions. On the other hand, it has not been shown that either Mr. Tristán Donoso or his representatives, through domestic law procedures such as that allowing for a challenge,144 claimed that there were possible irregularities regarding the activities of the Public Attorneys during the inquest stage of the proceedings, nor did such representatives affirm that the criminal action brought against the victim was vitiated because of their acts or omissions as a body having occurred during the preliminary proceedings. 167. In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds that the State did not violate the right to the due process of the law enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Tristán Donoso, in the context of the investigation carried out against him for crimes against honor. 2. ii) Right to be presumed innocent 168. The representatives alleged that, in the proceedings conducted against Mr. Tristán Donoso, the Segundo Tribunal Superior de Justicia [High Court of Justice Number Two] a) did not assess “[a] series of factors that caused [the victim] to become convinced that the [former Attorney General] had recorded his conversation”; b) presumed that the accused party willfully attributed a false criminal act to the individual accuser, and concluded that Mr. Tristán Donoso had acted with reckless malice; and c) sentenced the victim, among other things, to serve eighteen months in prison, which sentence was replaced by the obligation to pay 75 days’ fine (supra para. 107). In view of the foregoing, the representatives considered that the State violated Article 8(2) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 169. As it has done in previous cases,145 the Court points out that it has already considered the criminal proceedings and the sentence imposed on Mr. Tristán Donoso in relation to Article 13 of the American Convention (supra paras. 116 to 130), and that, so, it is not necessary for this Court to determine on the alleged violation of the 144 Section 395 of the Judicial Code provides that “[t]he provisions on impediments and challenges concerning justices and judges shall be applicable to Public Attorneys,” supra note 73, folio 1920. 145 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 79, paras. 176 to 178.