of the Public Prosecutor's Office, he could exercise the function of anticipating evidence,160 in addition, he had the function of issuing the "indictment",161 which in turn should contain the "enunciation of the facts"162 and "the legal qualification of the crime" in a duly substantiated manner, among other aspects. 114. The Court appreciates that both the Commission and the representatives limited themselves to justifying the alleged unlawfulness of the judge's dual function based on the procedural regulation. Thus, the Commission argued that the dual function "is problematic with respect to the guarantee of impartiality," since the cited regulation itself "shows that the functions of the control judge necessarily implied that said authority formed, prior to the trial, an idea about the facts and the way in which they fit into a certain type of criminal offense. This Court notes that the Commission and the representatives did not refer to the specific control actions carried out by Judge H.S.H. in the instant case. Nor does the body of evidence before this Court contain specific actions that would allow the Court to examine the acts of the national judge and determine whether or not his impartiality was guaranteed. The Court warns that it is not enough for the parties to state the rules on which the alleged violations are based, but that they also have the duty to indicate and specify the actions or proceedings that the judge carried out specifically in the control stage that may have caused a violation of the rights of the alleged victims. 115. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Rodríguez Revolorio, Mr. López Calo and Mr. Archila Pérez. b.2 The right of defense, the duty of sufficient justification and the principle of presumption of innocence 116. In this section, the Court will analyze the alleged responsibility of the State in relation to its obligations regarding the right of defense, the duty of sufficient justification and respect for the principle of presumption of innocence, since the representatives and the Commission alleged that the State failed to provide a reasoned and sufficient explanation of the motives and legal grounds taken into account through its judicial agents to impose the death penalty on the alleged victims. These argumentative deficiencies consisted of the improper admissibility and evaluation of the 160 161 162 Code of Criminal Procedure, Congress of the Republic of Guatemala, Decree No. 51-92. "(Jurisdictional acts: Anticipated evidence). When it is necessary to carry out a reconnaissance, reconstruction, expert opinion or inspection that by its nature and characteristics must be considered definitive acts that cannot be reproduced, or when a body of evidence must be produced because, due to some obstacle difficult to overcome, it is presumed that it will not be able to do so during the oral debate, the Public Prosecutor's Office or any of the parties shall request the judge in control of the investigation to carry it out. The judge will carry out the act, if he considers it formally admissible, summoning all the parties, defense counsel or representatives, who will have the right to attend with the powers provided for with respect to their participation in the debate. The accused who is detained will be represented by his defense counsel, unless he requests to intervene in person. If, due to the nature of the act, the anticipated summons leads to fear of loss of evidence, the judge will summon the parties in such a way as to avoid this danger, taking care not to affect the powers attributed to them". Code of Criminal Procedure, Congress of the Republic of Guatemala, Decree No. 51-92. "Article 320. (Indictment). Immediately upon the issuance of an arrest warrant or a substitute measure, the judge in control of the investigation shall issue an indictment against the person to whom it refers. An indictment may only be issued after the person against whom it is issued has been questioned. It may be reformed ex officio or at the request of a party only in preparatory proceedings, prior to indictment". Code of Criminal Procedure, Congress of the Republic of Guatemala, Decree No. 51-92. "Article 321. The indictment shall contain the following: [...]. (2) A brief statement of the fact or facts about which the inquiry was received. 34