account the specific interests at stake. In the present case, the interests at stake included the potential application of the death penalty, and the assistance of counsel must be evaluated in that context73. 95. Finally, under Article 25 of the Convention, the States must provide adequate and effective remedies against acts in violation of their rights, both those established in the Convention and in the law.74 2. Case analysis 96. Firstly, the Commission recalls that as outlined in the proven facts section, the alleged victims did not have technical defense in at least the following proceedings: (i) when offering their initial statements in the investigative phase on April 19, 1993, (ii) during the confrontation proceeding (careo) among the defendants, which took place before the Second Chamber of the First Trial Court on May 5, 1993; (iii) on 22 April 1993, during the proceeding in which pretrial detention was ordered. 97. This fact alone constitutes a violation of the right to technical assistance because, as stated above, said right must be exercised from the beginning of the procedure and in every proceeding without exception. In addition, the IACHR has observed that the absence of technical defense has a clear impact on the process. Indeed, according to the conviction, the initial statements which were rendered without technical assistance had a predominant value to justify the sentence, when considered an "improper confession" in the case of Roberto Girón and "qualified confession" in the case of Pedro Castillo Mendoza. 98. In addition, the Commission notes that the decision of April 22, 1993, which imposed the pretrial detention, was arbitrary, as indicated in the previous section. Therefore, it was of particular relevance that the alleged victims had technical assistance at that time in order to exercise control on the legality of the decision and to exercise the relevant remedies. 99. Secondly, the Commission highlights that the ex officio defenders appointed on April 27, 1993, were law students and not graduated lawyers. As informed by the State, the appointment of law students for to defend criminal cases was allowed by the Criminal Procedural Code in effect at the time. 100. As noted in the previous section, it is a State duty to guarantee the right to technical assistance to persons who do not have private counsel and such appointment may not be a mere formality. In addition, such defense must be duly qualified and for this purpose the State shall adopt all necessary measures to create the conditions required for the exercise of this right. The Commission considers that the allocation of law students as ex officio defense attorneys on a death penalty case, violates the right to have adequate technical assistance. The resort to law students to exercise this essential function shows that at the time of the facts the State had not created the conditions needed to guarantee this fundamental component of due process. 101. The Commission also recalls that lawyers defending death penalty cases should be professionals with adequate experience and training in such cases.75 As a consequence, the resort to law 73 IACHR, Report No. 78/15, Case 12.831. Merits (Publication), Kevin Cooper. United States. October 28, 2015, para.130. 74 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 131, and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. México. Prelimininary Objections, Merits and Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 183, para. 78. 75 For example, in the case of Roberto Moreno Ramos against the United States of America, the IACHR expressed its particular concern respecting the Petitioners’ submissions on the deficient state of the capital public defender system in the state of Texas. According to the Petitioners, Texas has no state-wide agency responsible for providing specialized representation in capital cases. The IACHR expressed its concern regarding the strong possibility that the quality of public defender services offered in death penalty cases in Texas may be deficient in part due to the lack of effective oversight by the State (…). See IACHR, Report No. 1/05, Case 12.430, Merits, Roberto Moreno Ramos, United States of America, January 28, 2005, paras. 56-57; IACHR, Report No. 78/15, Case 12.831. Merits (Publication). Kevin Cooper. United States. October 28, 2015, para.133. 17