VIII-3 THE RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION138 A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 97. The Commission concluded that, in accordance with rigorous scrutiny that States must observe in cases involving the application of the death penalty, the criminal proceedings to which the alleged victims were subjected violated the human rights to freedom from ex post facto laws, fair trial, and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), 9 and 25(1), in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention; as well as Articles 8(2) and 8(2)(c) in relation to the obligations derived from Article 1(1) of the same treaty. Likewise, given that the regulation of the judge's functions necessarily implied that they would be involved in the control and sentencing stages, the objective impartiality of the court was violated, since this implied that, prior to the decision, they would have reached a preconception about the criminal classification of the defendants' conduct; in the specific case, the State did not provide elements to demonstrate that this circumstance did not materialize. In addition, it considered that the guarantee of the right to a fair trial was tarnished by the fact that two pieces of evidence that were decisive in the imposition of the sentence were evaluated despite the fact that they did not comply with the formalities required in the applicable legislation; in addition, the judgment did not sufficiently and clearly explain the reasons why this fact did not violate the defense of the accused and their presumption of innocence, nor why the evidence offered by the defense was discarded. Finally, it considered that none of the remedies filed by the alleged victims were effective and in accordance with international human rights standards, since they were regulated with a margin of action limited to procedural errors, excluding the analysis of facts and evidence. 98. The representatives alleged that the sentence violated Articles 8, 8(1), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(h), and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2; as well as Articles 8(2) and 8(2)(b), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. In this regard, they asserted that there was a violation of the right to a fair trial and of the right to effective judicial protection, agreeing with the Commission's observations that two key elements of evidence did not meet the legal requirements, and that there was clear evidentiary bias. In addition, they stated that there was subjective impartiality, since the President of the Tribunal made statements that showed that, prior to the entire process, he had already adopted a position on the direction of his decision, and objective impartiality, due to the structure of the procedural system, in the terms referred to by the Commission. They also referred to the violation of the presumption of innocence and the right to be informed of the charges, since prior to the beginning of the trial, prejudgments were made about their guilt. 99. With regard to the right of defense, the representatives argued that the alleged victims were denied the possibility of challenging the evidence presented during the proceeding and of exercising an adequate technical defense. As to the lack of sufficient justification, they reiterated the arguments of the Commission and added that the requirements regarding the procedures and qualifications of the experts were not observed, and that the judicial body did not evaluate the prior or subsequent behavior of the accused as an extenuating circumstance to exclude the death penalty as a sanction. 100. Regarding the violation of the right to an effective remedy, they affirmed that the State is responsible for not guaranteeing that right because the various remedies filed were decided without legal justifications and, by their nature, were ineffective for the defense of the accused. 138 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 30