101. The State requested a declaration of its absence of international responsibility with respect to the violation of Articles 8(1), 9 and 25(1) of the American Convention, arguing that the trial brought against the alleged victims complied with due process established in domestic law. Finally, it argued that, because of the subsidiary nature of the inter-American system, the Inter-American Court cannot act as an appeal instance for judgments handed down by domestic courts, and therefore it does not have the power to create or define new legal concepts in domestic legislation. B. Considerations of the Court 102. In the instant case, the Court has been called upon to determine whether in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez, which culminated in a death sentence, the guarantees of due process were observed, as required, in particular, by Article 8 of the Convention, and whether those persons had access to an effective remedy pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention, both in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument. 103. The Court has said that the right to due process refers to the set of requirements that must be observed in procedural instances so that individuals are in a position to adequately defend their rights vis-à-vis any act of the State, adopted by any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, that may affect them.139 104. In conventional terms, due process is translated into the "judicial guarantees" recognized in Article 8 of the American Convention. This provision of the Convention establishes a system of guarantees that condition the exercise of the ius puniendi of the State and that seek to ensure that the accused is not subjected to arbitrary decisions, because “the due guarantees” must be observed to ensure the right to due process in the proceedings in question.140 From the beginning of the first steps taken in any proceedings, all procedural guarantees must be ensured in order to safeguard the right to defense.141 Likewise, all the required elements must concur to ensure the greatest possible balance between the parties, for the sake of the defense of the interests and rights thereof. This implies, among other aspects, that the adversarial principle must prevail.142 b.1 Right to an impartial judge and the principle of presumption of innocence 105. In the instant case, the Commission and the representatives alleged that the State violated the guarantee of impartiality and the principle of presumption of innocence on two counts. The first is based on the fact that the president of the Fourth Sentencing Court, Mr. H. S. H., allegedly stated to one of the defense attorneys and an expert witness that "with or without an expert, they will be convicted". The second objection is based on the fact that Mr. H. S. H. served as supervisory judge during the investigation stage143 of the case, and then served as president of the Fourth Criminal Sentencing Court for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment, which sentenced the alleged victims.144 Case of the Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69, and Case of Dominican and Haitian Expelled Persons v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 349. 140 Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (arts. 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 28, and Case J v. Peru, supra, para. 258. 141 Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 174 and 175. 142 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 132, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 178. 143 Cf. Communication from the Supreme Court of Justice to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, October 3, 1997 (evidence file, folios 310 and 311). 144 Judgment of the Fourth Criminal Sentencing Court for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of 139 31