24 that no further examination of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan’s mental state was necessary in order to ensure a fair trial. 82. During the proceedings of this case before this Tribunal, the representatives had Mr. DaCosta Cadogan examined by Dr. Green, a chartered clinical psychologist, who concluded, after a 4 hour interview with the alleged victim, that “Mr. Cadogan suffers from a [p]ersonality [d]isorder as well as [a]lcohol [d]ependence[, which] could both lead to a disposal of diminishing responsibility in a [m]urder trial in the U[nited] K[ingdom,] as they are recognized as formal mental disorders.”67 83. Thus, this Court must analyze whether the State violated Mr. DaCosta Cadogan´s right to a fair trial recognized under Article 8 of the Convention, in light of the fact that no detailed evaluation of his mental health was made during his criminal trial.68 Specifically, this Tribunal must evaluate whether the mere availability of a psychiatric evaluation upon the request of Mr. DaCosta Cadogan or the trial judge was sufficient to guarantee him a fair trial. The Court observes that this is the first time that this issue has been submitted before it in a contentious case. 84. In that regard, the Court recalls that, due to the exceptionally serious and irreversible nature of the death penalty, its imposition or application is subject to certain procedural requirements that limit the punitive power of the State and whose compliance must be strictly observed and reviewed.69 Accordingly, the Tribunal observes that Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that the State must provide, “in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against [a person],” “due guarantees […] within a reasonable time.” The terms of this Article clearly indicate that the subject of the right is the accused, that is, the person before the judge that is to decide the case.70 As such, he or she must be able to demand that all the “guarantees” that “due process” entails are observed; these, in turn, may be determined by the tribunal depending on the particular circumstances of each case. That is, every judge has the obligation to ensure that proceedings are carried out in a manner that guarantees and respects those due process rights necessary to ensure a fair trial in each case. Accordingly, Article 8(2) of the Convention specifies which of these constitute “minimum guarantees” to which all persons have an equal right during proceedings. Specifically, Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention requires that individuals are able to adequately defend themselves against any act of the State that may affect their rights.71 Additionally, Article 8(2)(f) recognizes the right of defendants to examine witnesses against them and those testifying on their behalf, under 67 Affidavit of Dr. Timothy Green (case file of affidavits, folio 1690, para. 6.4). 68 As the Court mentioned in Chapter II of the present Judgment (supra paras. 24-25), on numerous occasions, this Tribunal has held that clarification of whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the actions of its judicial bodies may lead to a situation in which the Court must examine the respective domestic proceedings in order to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. 69 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 21, para. 55; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 20, para. 50, and Case of Fermín-Ramírez, supra note 24, paras. 78-79. 70 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 146. 71 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25, and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27; Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 116; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 95, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 2, 2008 Series C No. 181, para. 140.