- 90 - rule “applies even before ‘charges’ stricto sensu are filed, [because f]or this article to meet its inherent purpose, it is necessary for the notification to be made before the accused makes his first statement344 before a public authority of any kind.”345 248. In this case, the State acknowledged the violation of its obligations under Articles 7(4) and 8(2)(b), (d) and (e) of the Convention, to the detriment of the eleven women detained in this case. Indeed, the facts acknowledged and the statements of the victims reveal that they were not informed of the reasons for their detention or the charges against them. 346 Furthermore, they were not guaranteed the right “to be assisted by legal counsel of [their] own choosing” or “by counsel provided by the State” from the start of the investigation against them, and they were not allowed to communicate with their families or lawyer of choice. 347 249. Therefore, based on the foregoing and the Court concludes that Mexico violated the rights 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the American Convention, the detriment of the eleven women victims in this State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(4) and 8(2)(b), in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to case. Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 187, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 182. 344 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 30, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 182. 345 Cf. IACHR, Merits Report No. 74/15 of October 28, 2015 (merits file, folios 122, 126, 129, 134, 136, 138 and 143). (i) Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada explained that she “did not want to make a statement because [she] did not know what [she] was accused of”; (ii) Mariana Selvas Gómez recounted that “they wanted to take a statement but they did not identify themselves or tell [the women] why they had brought” them to the prison, and that she did not know the reasons for her detention until May 10, when the formal order of imprisonment was issued; (iii) Ana María Velasco Rodríguez recounted that they “took [her] fingerprints and photograph, asking her to hold up a piece of wood with [her] name, a number and the indication of ‘unspecified offense’, but at no time did they tell [her] why [she] was there […] of what offense [she] was accused”; (iv) Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno described how she was taken to make a statement “before someone who she later found out was an agent of the Public Prosecution Service, because at the time he did not identify himself,” and that “[u]naware of legal procedures, [she] asked what she was accused of and the agent told [her] that the offense was unknown”; consequently, she reserved her right to make a statement, and (v) Angélica Patricia Torres Linares recalled that she was taken to the prison dining hall where “there were some men waiting to take our statements,” and that she “did not understand who they were; she only knew that [she] could reserve her right to make a statement, and that is what [she] did.” Statement by Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada before the FEVIM on June 15, 2006 (evidence file, folio 709); statement by Mariana Selvas Gómez before the FEVIM on May 25, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1016); video of the statement by Mariana Selvas Gómez (evidence file, folios 1009 and 1010); statement and expansion of the complaint before the FEVIM on June 15, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1223). See also, affidavit made by Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, victim in this case, on October 31, 2017 (evidence file, folio 37161); expansion of the complaint by Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno before the FEVIM on June 14, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1442); statement by Angélica Patricia Torres Linares during preliminary inquiry TOL/DR/I/466/2006 (evidence file, folio 1508). Also, on May 24, four of the eleven women victims in this case advised the CNDH that the authorities had not informed them of the reason for their detention. Cf. Detailed record of the Deputy Inspector of May 24, 2006, with regard to several persons on hunger strike (evidence file, folio 1596). 346 Cf. IACHR, Merits Report No. 74/15 of October 28, 2015 (merits file, folios 122, 126, 129, 136, 138 and 143). In addition, Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada indicated that they “were never able to ask for help, file complaints, nothing; because [they] were kept incommunicado.” Statement by Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada before the FEVIM on June 15, 2006 (evidence file, folio 709). María Patricia Romero Hernández recounted that “even though they appointed her a defense counsel, she never had contact with him and he did not advise her of her rights.” Report of the CNDH of May 6, 2006 (evidence file, folio 835). The CNDH also documented, with regard to three of the eleven women victims in this case, that “there was no evidence that legal counsel had been provided by the State, even though she indicated that she had not been assisted by legal counsel of her own choosing or a private lawyer,” while in the other eight cases, it noted that “the […] corresponding public defender failed to handle the defense of their cases starting when [the women] were contacted by the investigating authority.” Cf. CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 28927, 29142, 29204, 29392, 29393, 29459, 29764, 29784, 29855, 29924, 29999. 30081 and 30082). 347