B. Considerations of the Court b.1 Criminal proceedings against Mr. Ruiz Fuentes 146. In this case, the Court has been asked to determine whether, during the initial criminal proceedings instituted against Mr. Ruiz Fuentes that culminated in a death sentence, the guarantees of due process were observed as required, in particular, by Article 8 of the Convention, and whether he had access to an effective remedy in accordance with Article 25, both in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 147. In the instant case, in which the measures taken during criminal proceedings are being questioned, the Court recalls that the organs of the inter-American human rights system do not function as an appellate court or a court for the review of judgments handed down in domestic proceedings. Their function is to determine the compatibility of the measures taken during such proceedings with the American Convention,182 and the Court will restrict itself to that task in this judgment. 148. The Court stresses that States have a duty to protect all persons, avoiding crimes, punishing the perpetrators, and maintaining public order. And this is particularly true in the case of facts such as those that gave rise to the criminal proceedings against Mr. Ruíz Fuentes, which not only entail harm to individuals, but also to the whole of society, and warrant the strongest condemnation, especially when children are involved. However, State measures to combat crime must be implemented within limits and in keeping with procedures that preserve both public safety and full respect for the human rights of those subject to their jurisdiction. 183 149. To establish whether the State violated the provisions of the Convention, the Court must decide two issues. On the one hand, it must determine whether Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ right of defense was violated owing to the impossibility of providing exculpatory evidence which, according to the Commission, involved a violation of Article 8(2)(c) and (f) of the American Convention and, according to the representatives, Article 8(2)(d) and (f) of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. On the other hand, the Court must determine whether the fact that the new layer appointed to defend Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was given only twenty-four hours to prepare his defense entailed, according to the representatives, a violation of Article 8(2)(c), (d) and (f) of the American Convention. 150. On the first issue, the Court notes that it is an uncontested fact that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was unable to provide exculpatory evidence during the criminal proceedings because his defense counsel at the time failed to sign and seal the corresponding memorandum and, for this reason, the court did not process that document. Regarding the supposed violation of the right of defense owing to the impossibility of presenting evidence during the hearings, this Court notes that the Appellate Court indicated that “[…], the appellant’s right of defense was never violated because, throughout the trial, he had his defense counsel, who laid claim to all his guarantees and if the evidence he proposed was rejected this was due to the unprofessional manner in which his lawyer offered the proposed evidence; however, despite this, the appellant was able to act during the processing of the corresponding proceedings in which the claimed failure to respect his guarantees did not occur.”184 151. The Court recalls that the right to defend oneself is a central component of the due process Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 83, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 190. 183 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., supra, para. 101, and Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 63. 184 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folio 113). 182 36