127. Second, the Court emphasizes that the only evidence offered by the defense was the testimony of Manuela’s mother, and this was subsequently withdrawn.231 The defense did not offer evidence that could prove that what happened to the newborn could have been an accident; for example, ask for an examination of the state of Manuela’s health, the impact of the preeclampsia and the visible lumps in Manuela’s neck. Furthermore, the defense failed to request that other evidence be obtained to confirm that the newborn had been born alive. On this point, it should be noted that the expert opinion of Dr. José Mario Naje was presented to the Inter-American Court and he pointed out that the test performed on the newborn during the autopsy was not conclusive as to whether or not it was a live birth, because the possibility that putrefaction had caused the lung tissue to float had not been ruled out.232 128. The Court recalls that the defense counsel should prevent harm to the rights of the person represented and, therefore, should support his arguments by offering rebuttal evidence.233 The negative consequences of the minimal evidentiary activity employed by the defense in this case was increased by the decision not to offer Manuela’s statement to the court. Although this could be a valid litigation strategy to avoid the defendant testifying, in this case, where the defense failed to offer rebuttal evidence, the waiver of Manuela’s statement and the statement of her mother that was originally offered signified accepting the truth of the facts as set out by the prosecution and, consequently, that Manuela was faced with a sentence of at least 30 years. Therefore, the failure to offer evidence and the waiver of Manuela’s testimony prevented the court from assessing her version of the facts and reveals that the defense failed to defend her interests adequately. 129. Lastly, the Court notes that the public defender did not file any appeal against the sentence (supra para. 85). It notes that the appeal for cassation was available and also the appeal for review, in which some of the inconsistencies indicated in this judgment could have been argued. 130. The Court considers that this shows that the actions of the public defender harmed Manuela’s rights and interests, leaving her defenseless, which constituted a violation of the essential right to be assisted by legal counsel. In addition, in this case, Manuela’s substantive right to defense was also violated because she was prevented from defending her interests. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Manuela. B.2 The use of gender stereotypes and judicial guarantees 131. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that every person has the right to be tried by an impartial court. The guarantee of impartiality requires that the judge acting in a specific dispute approach the facts of the case subjectively free of all prejudice and also offer sufficient objective guarantees to exclude any doubt the parties or the community might entertain as to his or her lack of impartiality.234 This guarantee means that the members of the court must not have any direct interest, preconceived position, or preference for either of the parties; that they are not involved in the dispute, and that they inspire the necessary confidence in Record of the preliminary hearing of the Second Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, Morazán, of July 7, 2008 (evidence file, folio 133). 231 232 3850). 233 Cf. Expert opinion provided by affidavit by José Mario Nájera Ochoa on March 5, 2021 (evidence file, folio Cf. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador, supra, paras. 157, 166, 168 and 169. Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 56, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 118. 234 40