66 who informed him about the reasons for the charges against him; he was granted adequate time and means to prepare his defense; he received counseling by his defense counsels or persons of trust with whom he communicated freely; he was informed about the right to defend himself or if he did not have the necessary resources, about the right to have a Federal Public defender appointed for him; they had the right to interrogate witnesses present in the Tribunal and he was given help to obtain the appearance of all those persons that could shed light on the facts; in such an extent that this benefit was adopted also by the defender who interrogated the witnesses who declared against him, the defenders who assisted him when rendering a statement at prosecution and in the preparation thereof, and the attesting witnesses who were present in the first statements; he was also informed about the right not to incriminate against oneself or to plead guilty; likewise, he was also duly informed of his right to appeal the judgments before a Superior Court.”253 160. As from that, the Unitary Tribunal considered that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel had the necessary defense, given that “the fact that they admitted that they do not recognize their court-appointed defense counsels […], does not minimize the evidentiary value of the proceedings in which they intervened, given that they were straightforward in mentioning that they provided them with legal counseling and that they ensure compliance with their individual guarantees.”254 The domestic courts who heard the case255 responded to the accusations of irregularities in the defense provided by court-appointed defense counsels in the same way the Unitary Tribunal did it. 161. On the other hand, the domestic judicial case file reveals that, in the statement rendered at the Public Prosecutor’s Office by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel on May 7, 1999, a court-appointed defense counsel as well as a private attorney intervened. On May 12, 1999 a formal order for detention was issued against the victims and on the next day, they appealed such court order and appointed a defense counsel to represent them at this procedural stage (supra para. 69). On June 29, 1999, the First Unitary Tribunal solved the motion of appeal and partially confirmed the detention order against Mr. Montiel Flores,256 since it revoked the charges brought against him related to possession of narcotics due to lack of evidence. As to Mr. Cabrera, the Tribunal upheld the formal order for detention. Based on the foregoing, this Tribunal notes that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel did have a defense counsel who appealed such decision and that said appeal produced some positive effects on the interests of the victims. 253 Likewise, the court indicated that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “had the corresponding legal counseling when they rendered their preliminary statements [through] Mr. Juan Carlos Palacios Sebastian Federal Public Defender and Liberio Melquiades Jardón[,] private attorney, who were appointed by the [them].”.” In addition it was established that even though, as has been mentioned by the appellants, said defenders “did not inform them about the right to render or not a statement, this event does not discredit the proceeding”, nor the fact that “they stayed in contact with the accused during a short term, [that] they do not agree with the objects placed at their sight, as has been said that it did not occur and that they indicated they do not remember what they declared about.” Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 148, folios 15301 to 15302 and 15238 to 15239. 254 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 148, folios 15227 to 15228. 255 Cf. Judgment of August 28, 2000 issued by the Fifth District Court, supra note 75, folios 11137 to 11293; Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 77, folio 11322, volume XXVII, folio 12205 and Judgment of July 16, 2001, issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 82, volume XXVIII, folio 13022 to volume XXIX, 13735. The Court notes that in the statements of May 6, 1999 the court-appointed defense counsel made questions for the defense of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and that, based on the interrogation, they mentioned for the first time the mistreatment against them. Cf. Statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, volume XXIII, folios 9777 to 9782 and 9783 to 9786. 256 Cf. Judgment issued on June 29, 1999 by the First Unitary Tribunal of the Twenty-First Circuit (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXIII, folios 9961 to 10020).