Commission nor the representatives explained why the fact that the alleged victims filed those remedies directly resulted in an infringement of their right to defense. Nor did they explain why the actions of the public defenders assigned to them constituted inexcusable negligence or a manifest failure in the exercise of the defense that had, or may have had, a decisive effect against the interests of the accused. 254 As for the alleged participation of the public defender in the acts of coercion against Reyes Alpízar, the Court finds that this aspect should be taken into account by the authorities when investigating the alleged acts of torture; however, in the absence of other additional elements of proof, it does not in itself constitute evidence of a possible violation of Reyes Alpízar’s right to defense. 255. Therefore, taking into account the above considerations, this Court finds that the State violated the right to defense contained in Articles 8(2)(d) and (e) of the American Convention to the detriment of Daniel García, inasmuch as he did not have a defense counsel during the initial stages of his arrest and arraigo. However, the Court lacks sufficient evidence to issue a ruling on the alleged violation of the right of defense to the detriment of Reyes Alpízar. 256. 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, the Commission and the representatives indicated that, in his first hearing before the Fifth Criminal Judge, Daniel García’s defense counsel requested that the Deputy Prosecutor R.F. be summoned to testify, in order to “demonstrate the facts to which the accused has linked him.” However, the Fifth Criminal Judge did not admit said request, stating that there was no evidence “that would allow [him] to verify […] the assertion made by the defendant”, considering that “the judicial actions are covered by the prerogatives of having been carried out by a public authority.” Thus, they are “reliable unless there is evidence to the contrary.” On this point, the State indicated that 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. 257. In relation to the above, it should be recalled that Daniel García Rodríguez stated that he was coerced during the time he was under arraigo in the presence of the Deputy Prosecutor. Likewise, the mistreatment and acts of torture he suffered were addressed in this judgment and were proven (supra Chapter VIII.2.B.1). In this sense, it is reasonable to assume that Daniel García Rodríguez requested the testimony of the Deputy Prosecutor within the framework of the criminal proceedings against him to prove the coercion to which he was subjected during the period of his arraigo. Therefore, this Court finds that the State also violated the right of the defense to question the witnesses present in court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses or experts, of other persons who may shed light on the facts, as established in Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez. B.3. The right to the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2) of the American Convention) 258. Regarding the right to the presumption of innocence, Article 8(2) of the American Convention states that every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until his guilt is legally established. The Court has been consistent in pointing out that this “requires that the State does not unofficially condemn a person or pass judgment before society, thus contributing to the formation of public opinion, as long as the criminal responsibility of that person has not been proven in accordance with the law.” Therefore, the judicial authorities in charge of the proceedings and other authorities must be “discreet and prudent when making public statements about a criminal case, before the person has been tried and convicted.” Indeed, receipt stamp of September 22, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1917 et seq.), Evidence hearing. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, May 7, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2046 et seq.). 254 Cf. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 164. -66-