and requesting the inclusion of evidence and promoting the investigation of facts relevant to the determination of their responsibility. They also noted that the authorities that heard the case from the beginning kept the alleged victims in a situation of unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of liberty for more than 17 years, despite the fact that such a measure should be exceptional. They further argued that the judge in this case did not adopt measures that would have helped to avoid excessive delays in the proceedings. Finally, they mentioned that the impact on the victims’ legal situation in this case has been disproportionate, since they have been subject to criminal proceedings without conviction or acquittal for more than 17 years, have been held in pretrial detention for practically this entire period and are currently under other precautionary measures. 239. The State indicated that, depending on the circumstances of each case, the full satisfaction of the requirements of justice prevails over the guarantee of reasonable time. In this sense, “the duration of the proceeding has been due to the respect for and guarantee of the right to defense and truth of the alleged victims.” It added that “based on this, and once the closing of the investigation stage of criminal case 236/2012 has been decreed, the State undertakes to resolve the case within a short period of time.” B. Considerations of the Court 240. The Court will now analyze the alleged violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, as well as of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the IACPPT, in the following order: a) the rule of exclusion of evidence obtained under coercion (Article 8(3) of the American Convention); b) the right to defense (Article 8(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the American Convention); c) the right to the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2) of the American Convention); d) the principle of reasonable time of the proceedings (Article 8(1) of the American Convention); and (e) conclusion. B.1. The rule of exclusion of evidence obtained under coercion (Article 8(3) of the American Convention) 241. In the instant case, it is alleged that Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar testified before the PGJEM during the time they were subjected to pressures and mistreatment in order to obtain their confessions, and that a complaint regarding these abuses was lodged by each of them when they were brought before the judge, and subsequently through various appeals filed (supra paras. 88 to 113). They indicated that these statements were not only not excluded from the criminal proceedings, but were also used as the central element of conviction to support the formal orders of imprisonment against them and were included in the case file as evidence that had a bearing on the possible responsibility and involvement of the alleged victims in the case (supra paras. 227 and 228). 242. With respect to these arguments, the Court recalls that Article 8(3) of the American Convention establishes that “[t]he confession of the accused is only valid if it is made without coercion of any nature.” On this point, the Court has held that “whenever it is proven that any form of duress has interfered with the spontaneous expression of a person’s will, this necessarily implies the obligation to exclude that evidence from the judicial proceedings. The annulment of such evidence is a necessary means to discourage the use of any form of coercion.” 240 On the other hand, statements obtained under duress are seldom truthful, because the person tries to say whatever is necessary to make the cruel treatment or torture stop. Accordingly, the Court considers that accepting or granting evidentiary value to statements or confessions obtained by coercion, which affect the person or a third party, constitutes, in turn, an infringement of a fair trial. Similarly, the Court has indicated that the absolute nature of the exclusionary rule is reflected in the prohibition on granting probative value not only to evidence obtained directly by coercion, 240 Cf. Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 193, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador, supra, para. 197. -62-