17 56. Specifically, in the case of Cabrera y Montiel v. Mexico, the Inter-American Court issued the following ruling as to whether the “fourth instance” argument could be admissible: […] it would be necessary for the claimant to seek the Court to review the judgment of a domestic court, without alleging, at the same time, that such a ruling constituted a violation of 36 international treaties with regard to which the Court has competence. 57. Based on the foregoing and in view of the scope of the instant case, which goes directly to whether or not Mr. Zegarra Marín’s conviction violated the protected right to the presumption of innocence, the Commission deems it pertinent to first establish that the “fourth instance” argument is groundless. Accordingly, the Commission will examine the proven facts in the following order: 1. The right to the presumption of innocence (Article 8.2 of the Convention in connection with Article 1.1 thereof); and 2. The right to appeal the judgment and to judicial protection (Articles 8.2.h and 25 of the Convention), in connection with Article 1.1 thereof. a. The right to the presumption of innocence (Article 8.2 of the Convention in connection with Article 1.1 thereof) 58. Article 8.2 of the American Convention establishes: Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. (…) 59. The right to a fair trial, as established in Article 8 of the American Convention, encompasses all of the requirements, which must met in procedural bodies, whatever their nature may be, in order to ensure that the individual may defend himself adequately with regard to any act of the State, which may affect his rights.37. The presumption of innocence is a foundation of these protected rights to a fair trial.38 60. The Inter-American Court has noted that this principle implies that the defendant is not required to prove that he has not committed the offence of which he is accused, because the onus probandi is on the those who accuse.39 Hence, irrefutable proof of guilt is an absolutely essential requirement for criminal punishment, and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution not the defense.40 36 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220. Para. 18. 37 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74; IA Ct. of HR, Case of Claude Reyes et al v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 116; and IA Ct. of HR, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87. October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27. 38 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77; IA Ct. of HR, Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 160; and IA Ct. of HR, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 145. 39 40 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 154. IA Ct. of HR, Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 182.