coercion on the part of the Mexican State, since the authority responsible has not yet reached a decision in this regard. A.2. Right to defense (Article 8(2) (d), (e) and (f) of the American Convention) 230. The Commission and the representatives argued that, from the moment of his arrest and throughout the time he was in arraigo, and when giving statements to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Daniel García did not receive legal assistance. It was only when was brought before a judge for the first time that he was assigned a public defender. For his part, Reyes Alpízar stated that, when he made the statements that he alleged were obtained under duress before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, he was assigned “a judicial [officer]” as public defender. The Court of Appeals, the First Collegiate Criminal Chamber of Tlalnepantla, when issuing the formal order of imprisonment, stated that the appointed defense attorney was indeed “assigned to the investigating body.” They noted that, in addition to the fact that the defense counsel did not have the necessary independence– which they considered especially relevant given the allegations that he had participated in the acts of coercion against Reyes Alpízar – the State had also failed to prove that said defense attorney had duly advised him on his legal situation, or that he had taken steps to defend him, such as questioning the legality or arbitrariness of the detention. 231. On the other hand, they indicated that, in his first hearing before the Fifth Criminal Judge, Daniel García’s defense counsel requested that the Deputy Prosecutor, Rogelio Figueroa, be summoned to testify, in order to “demonstrate the facts to which the accused has linked him.” However, the judge not only denied this request, but also indicated that the judicial actions were sufficient evidence, since they were covered by ministerial authority. They added that in the criminal proceeding the defendants had not been able to present essential exculpatory evidence offered on their behalf and that the judge in the case had not taken steps to compel the submission of information or the appearance of the witnesses necessary to discover the truth. Consequently, they concluded that the State violated the right to defense in breach of Article 8(2) d), (e) and (f) of the American Convention. 232. The State emphasized that the public defender assigned to Reyes Alpízar belonged to the Public Defender’s Office of the state of Mexico, which was not part of the PGJEM, but of the Secretaría General de Gobierno (General Secretariat of Government), as established in the Public Defender Law of the state of Mexico, applicable at the time of the facts. Regarding Daniel García Rodríguez, it indicated that as a result of the summons of February 25, 2002, and based on the procedural law in force at that time, which provided that in those cases in which there was a wellfounded fear that the summons would be disobeyed, a person could be presented by the police, he made his statement freely, spontaneously and without any pressure, since he did not incriminate himself in any of the questions that he was asked. On the contrary, he categorically denied his involvement in the facts. Therefore, the State considered that Daniel García exercised his right to a technical defense in a personal manner. It added that, throughout his criminal trial, Daniel García Rodríguez had 14 private defense lawyers and 12 public defenders, while Reyes Alpízar Ortiz has had seven private attorneys and 14 public defenders. 233. Regarding the alleged violation of the right of the defense to question and obtain the appearance of other persons who could shed light on the facts, which embodies the principles of adversarial proceedings and procedural equality, the State argued that the judge’s refusal was not aimed at hindering Daniel García’s right to question the witnesses against him, as the InterAmerican Commission is erroneously trying to make it appear; rather, the judicial proceedings did not reveal any alleged acts of torture and, therefore, his statement was not considered pertinent. The failure of the Deputy Prosecutor to appear was remedied through the defense motions filed by the alleged victims, which gave rise to the investigation into the alleged acts of torture, and included the testimony of the then Deputy Prosecutor. -60-