4 with the Rule of Law. Strictly speaking, said respect is also inherent to the public interest, which would suffer if the dignity of the individual were abridged and his or her rights denied. The aspects under discussion in this case pertain to the substantive or material and to the procedural issues of justice regarding juvenile offenders –or alleged offenders-. These include those pertaining to coercive measures or detention, as well as executing measures ordered by competent authorities. 14. Once again we must stress that penal or quasi-penal social control, pertaining to minors, is a measure of last resort. The legal definitions of behaviors that justify punishment by the State must refer to actual undue detriment to legally established rights, not merely to situations of alleged risk or danger that lead to suspicions – subject to the discretion of those observing them- that it is possible that a transgression may occur, and on these “grounds” to activate the repressive means of the State. In any case, it is necessary to develop a rational classification of the unlawful behaviors, distributing them in well-substantiated categories, taking into account the different gravity of the offenses and consequently regulating juridical reaction, without incurring in the excessive actions typical of an authoritarian system. Certainly there is a need to prevent behavior that is injurious to legal rights, and the police play this role under the Rule of Law, but said prevention does not authorize unrestricted actions in face of behaviors of youths that do not violate the legal order, or that do so only with scarcely significant or injurious actions that do not constitute crimes and should not entail the treatment and consequences inherent to the latter. 15. The breakdown of limits to repressive action by public authorities and invasion of the natural areas of individuals’ liberties –those of minors, in this case- does in fact constitute a serious threat to the Rule of Law. All this leads to the need to respect the sphere of free behavior and to carefully establish, within the legal framework, those actions that are gravely injurious to legal rights, in face of which it is legitimate –pursuant to a criterion of material, not merely formal legitimacy- to activate the punitive function, as opposed to minor offenses, which must be dealt with by other means and instruments, both public and private. 16. In this regard, it is necessary to resort to legitimate means to attain just solutions. This includes proceedings before State bodies, entrusted with the final decision, and the alternative means that remove the hearing and solution of the problem from the sphere of public justice. The principle of guarantees must also prevail in said proceedings, which does not impede State action pursuant to its legitimate purpose and authority, but sets in the hands of private citizens the possibility of broadly exercising the right to defense, with all the powers and actions that it entails. 17. In this setting, even in cases of mere misdemeanors, not of crimes, presumption of innocence must apply, together with the burden of evidence upon the authorities, providing defense counsel from the time of detention of the individual and of arraignment –before he or she makes any statement that might compromise his or her legal situation and determine the outcome of the proceeding-, information on the cause for detention and the rights of the detainee, access to the case file, the possibility of resorting to expedite remedies –especially those pertaining to protection of fundamental rights-, celerity of the proceeding and access to conditional discharge. 18. It is indispensable for the procedural system to establish and ensure various measures of control regarding the conduct and legality of the proceeding and due