but also to evidence derived from such action. 241 Furthermore, the Court has held that the annulment of procedural documents resulting from torture or cruel treatment is an effective measure to halt the consequences of a violation of judicial guarantees. 242 243. In Chapter VIII.2.B.1 of this judgment, the Court concluded that Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz were subjected to acts of torture in order to obtain their confessions or statements against third parties when they were arrested and then held in arraigo. These acts were brought to the attention of the competent courts in the criminal proceedings that were being – and continue to be – brought against them. Similarly, these acts of torture were not investigated immediately by the authorities, but rather, several years later (supra Chapter VIII.2.B.2). In the context of the criminal proceedings against them, evidence gathered through methods of coercion was used, particularly in the formal orders of imprisonment 243 (supra paras. 73 and 78). 244. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Court notes that, although in the conviction judgment of May 12, 2022, against Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar by the Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla, their statements of February 25, 2002 and October 25, 2002 were excluded from the body of evidence, this was not because they were obtained under duress, but rather because they were excluded “taking into account that [they had been] obtained during the preventive detention ordered against the [defendants].” 244 245. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that the statements of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, obtained under coercion and torture, have been used in different procedural acts in criminal case 88/2002, particularly in the decisions ordering the preventive detention of the alleged victims. Therefore, far from being excluded from the body of evidence since there was a veil of suspicion about the manner in which they were obtained, which had been denounced and was belatedly investigated – they became part of the procedural elements taken into account for their preventive incarceration, which lasted for more than 17 years. Consequently, for the reasons indicated, the State is responsible for the violation of its obligation to exclude statements obtained under duress, in breach of Article 8(3) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. B.2. The right to defense (Article 8(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the American Convention) 246. The Court has pointed out that paragraphs (d) and (e) of Article 8(2) state that the accused has the right to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing and, if he does not do so, he has the inalienable right to be assisted by legal counsel provided by the State, paid or not according to domestic law. In these terms, a defendant may conduct his 241 Cf. Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador, supra, para. 199, Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 124, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 167. 242 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra, para. 108; Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 224, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador, supra, para. 197. 243 Cf. Second Criminal Collegiate Court of Tlalnepantla, Superior Court of Justice of the state of Mexico. Ruling in indirect amparo proceeding 1192/2005-E. Tlalnepantla de Baz, state of Mexico, May 23, 2007 (evidence file, folios 710 to 825). 244 In this decision, the Criminal Court recalled the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice which determined the unconstitutionality of the arraigo provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Chihuahua as well as the position expressed by different international bodies on the concept of pre-procedural arraigo in Mexico. Cf. Criminal Court of the Tlalnepantla Judicial District. Judgment of May 12, 2022 (evidence file, folio 70448). Furthermore, it is on record that in said decision, the arguments regarding the alleged torture suffered by the victims was analyzed, comparing all the expert reports produced in relation to that matter. As a result of this cross-checking of information, the judge did not consider proven the hypothesis of torture, although as mentioned, the statements obtained under coercion were excluded for other reasons not directly related to those provided for in Article 8(3) of the American Convention. Cf. Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla. Judgment of May 12, 2022 (evidence file, folio 70367 et seq.). -63-