had not opened any investigation into those facts. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the State of Guatemala had violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established Article 1(1) of this instrument, and also the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT. 140. In addition, the Commission noted that almost 12 years had passed since the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and yet the State had not made use of all the means available to it to develop and follow up on lines of investigation. It also noted that, according to the State’s own description of the investigation, some fundamental measures to elucidate the facts had not been taken. Furthermore, the Commission argued that the indications of a possible cover-up had not been investigated. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. 141. Regarding the criminal proceedings against Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the representatives argued that the State had violated the alleged victim’s right of defense because: (i) it failed to exercise adequate judicial control over the negligent actions of his lawyer, 181 and (ii) it failed to take the necessary measures to ensure that the alleged victim had sufficient time for the presentation of his defense. 142. The representatives also argued that no remedy was available to Mr. Ruiz Fuentes that would have permitted a comprehensive review of the judgment convicting him. They concluded that article 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes that “the judgment may never refer to the evidence or the facts that have been declared proven,” limited the review of the appealed judgment a priori, excluding the possibility of reviewing factual and evidentiary matters and restricting the review merely to the law. 143. Regarding the investigation resulting from the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the representatives argued that, serious omissions, flaws and irregularities occurred during the first stages of the investigation, and these continued subsequently, because the authorities had not investigated the facts fully and thoroughly. 144. In the case of the investigation into the acts of torture suffered by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes at the time of his arrest on August 6, 1997, the representatives argued that the State of Guatemala had failed to investigate them, even though they had been reported on many occasions. 145. The State emphasized that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes enjoyed the rights established in domestic law in order to guarantee lawful and just legal proceedings. The State stressed that the Inter-American Court was not an body before which judgments handed down by the domestic judicial organs of the Member States of the Organization of American States could be appealed and that the organs of the inter-American human rights system constituted a subsidiary system exclusively authorized to interpret the American Convention on Human Rights. In addition, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that the errors committed by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ defense lawyer could not and should not be attributed to the State. It also mentioned that recourse could be had to administrative and disciplinary procedures in situations such as the one that occurred, and that the alleged victim had not exercise this right. Lastly, the State reaffirmed that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes had had access to, and used, all the previously established procedural recourses and remedies, and that these had been guaranteed to him to provide him with judicial protection. For example, it mentioned that the death sentence had been amended and commuted to imprisonment. The representatives indicated, first, that he was prevented from presenting exculpatory evidence during the hearing because the corresponding memorandum was rejected as it had not been signed and sealed by the defense lawyer despite the fact that this formality was not required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Second, on the day the hearing was supposed to be held, the lawyer suddenly and without justification abandoned the victim at a crucial stage of the proceedings. 181 35