that obliges the State, at all times, to treat the individual as a real subject of the proceedings in the most extensive sense of this concept, and not merely as its object. 185 Evidently, it must be possible to exercise the right of defense from the moment a person is accused of being the possible perpetrator of, or participant in, a wrongful act and only culminates when the proceedings end, including, if applicable, the stage of execution of the sentence.186 152. That said, the Court underscores that it is the State’s duty to ensure the free and full exercise of the right of defense, regardless of whether the defendant is represented by a public or a private defender. In this case, the Court notes that the evidence provided by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was not admitted because the respective memorandum lacked the signature and seal of the defense lawyer, which meant that the document had no validity under the procedural law in force at that time.187 Therefore, the Court notes that the proposed evidence was rejected owing to a clear and serious procedural error committed by the defense lawyer. 188 Consequently, the Court considers that the Guatemalan State cannot be considered responsible for the omission of a private defense counsel, especially when, in the instant case, the Court has neither pertinent arguments nor evidence that could possibly prove that the inaction of the private defense counsel was due to some type of undue obstruction or intervention by the State. Therefore, the Court considers that the State did not violate Article 8(2)(d) and (f) of the American Convention. 153. On the second issue, here again it is uncontested that, on the day of the oral and public hearing, prior to the delivery of the death sentence, due to the absence of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ lawyer, the Criminal Sentencing Court declared that the latter had abandoned the case and appointed a new defense counsel who was already part of the case. 189 Mr. Ruiz Fuentes gave his consent to the new lawyer defending him in the trial. 190 Following this appointment, the lawyer asked that the hearing be suspended in order to be able to prepare his client’s defense. Despite this, the Criminal Sentencing Court decided to postpone the hearing for only twenty-four hours because “the lawyer […] was already acting as the defense counsel of another defendant” and, therefore, was familiar with the proceedings.191 154. The Court recalls that having “adequate time and means for the preparation of [the] defense” pursuant to Article 8(2)(c) of the treaty, is one of “the guarantees inherent in the right of defense.”192 If the State tries to limit this right, it must respect the principle of legality, indicate the legitimate purpose it wishes to achieve with the corresponding reasons, and prove that the means used to achieve that purpose is appropriate, necessary and strictly proportionate. To the contrary, the restriction of an individual’s right of defense will be contrary to the Convention.193 155. In this case, the Court notes that the recently appointed lawyer had one day to prepare his Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 29, and Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 153. 186 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 29, and Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 153. 187 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folio 113). 188 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folio 113). 189 Cf. Record of hearing C-4-98. Statement made by Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes during the oral and public trial hearings before the Sixth Sentencing Court for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes on April 21, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1135). 190 Cf. Record of hearing C-4-98. Statement made by Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes during the oral and public trial hearings before the Sixth Sentencing Court for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes on April 21, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1136). 191 Cf. Record of hearing C-4-98. Statement made by Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes during the oral and public trial hearings before the Sixth Sentencing Court for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes on April 21, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1136). 192 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne vs. Chile, supra, para. 170, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 156. 193 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 55, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 206. 185 37