39 130 Article 7(4) of the Convention is not satisfied by the mere mention of the legal grounds. More recently, the Inter-American Court has written that article 7(4) of the Convention refers to two aspects: i) the information, whether in oral or written form, on the time of the detention and ii) the notification, which must be served in 131 writing, of the charges. 171. In the instant case, the petitioner alleges that he was not told the reasons for his detention or the charges against him. The State, for its part, contends that Mr. Galindo was never criminally prosecuted; instead, during the investigation conducted against him, he was allowed to avail himself of a rewards-based mechanism of criminal law –in this case the Repentance Law- the direct result of which was his release and exemption from any criminal sanction. 172. The Commission notes that based on the facts established in this case, for the duration of the time that Mr. Galindo was held in detention and subsequent to his release, he was never informed of the charge he was alleged to be facing in the terrorism investigation that targeted him. The State, for its part, has provided no documentary supports that would allow one to conclude that this guarantee had been respected; it has failed to meet its burden of proof. 173. The concept of due process embodied in Article 8 of the American Convention should be understood to apply essentially to all the judicial guarantees protected under the American Convention, even 132 under the ‘suspension of guarantees’ provision in Convention Article 27. The Commission observes that the case law of the Inter-American Court holds that Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention, which protects an accused person’s right to prior notification, in detail, of the charges against him, applies even before the “charges”, in a strict sense, are filed. For this right to satisfy its inherent purposes, notification must take place before the accused 133 134 gives his first statement before any public authority. 174. The Commission would also draw attention to how Convention articles 7(4) and 8(2)(b) and (c) are interrelated; they uphold the right to representation by counsel, since if a person is not informed of the reasons for his detention, he can hardly exercise his right of defense. The Inter-American Court has held the following in this regard: If the right to defense arises as of the moment in which an investigation into an individual is ordered (…), the accused must have access to a legal representation from that moment onwards, especially during the procedure in which his statement is rendered. To prevent the accused from being advised by counsel means to strictly limit the right to defense, which leads to a procedural imbalance and leaves the individual 135 unprotected vis-à-vis the punitive authority. 130 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220. Paragraph 105. Citing. I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170. Paragraph 71; and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180. Paragraph 107. 131 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220. Paragraph 106. 132 Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9. 133 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Paragraph 30, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C No. 114, paragraph 187, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 21, 2005. Series C No. 135, paragraph 225. 134 I/A Court H.R., I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Paragraph 30. 135 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Paragraph 62.