103). The Court also notes that, on the aforementioned occasions, the consular authorities of Scot Cochran’s country of origin had the possibility of providing assistance in matters relating to his defense, and that one of the Costa Rican State’s obligations was not to interfere in such interaction. In the Court’s opinion, the State complied with this obligation. 109. For all these reasons, the Court finds that it has been sufficiently proved that there was constant communication between Scot Cochran and the consulate of his country of origin and that, based on this communication, he obtained assistance. It is not the purpose of this case to assess whether the consular assistance provided by the country of origin was sufficient or adequate as this exceeds this Court’s competence. 110. The Court emphasizes that although the representatives, and Scot Cochran himself,144 have stated that the failure to notify his right to be assisted by his consular authorities violated his right of defense, this violation was not argued during the proceedings, and no probative elements were provided that verified this violation. As this Court has indicated supra, the case file shows that Scot Cochran was offered a public defender at the time of the raid on his residence145 and when his first statement was taken. The alleged victim rejected this offer and appointed a private defense counsel.146 Similarly, during the proceedings, he had at least five different private defense counsel; at the trial stage he appointed two new defenders, and at the appeals stage he had at least six different lawyers. The Court therefore finds that, in the instant case, Scot Cochran had extensive possibilities of organizing his defense and that the case file does not reveal that he had any limitations to appointing and replacing those who represented him throughout the proceedings or to exercising the other guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the Convention, such as requesting rebuttal evidence and questioning witnesses. 111. In addition, in the proceedings instituted against Scot Cochran, it is possible to observe that the State took steps to facilitate equal conditions in the proceedings. For example, the records show that his initial statement was suspended in order to provide him with a translator147 and, throughout the proceedings, the State offered to provide him with the services of a translator, but Scot Cochran himself rejected this indicating that he had sufficient knowledge of the Spanish language.148 Similarly, on numerous occasions, Scot Cochran was offered access to public defense owing to his complaints regarding the actions of his private defenders. Statement made before the Inter-American Court by Scot Cochran during the public hearing held on November 9, 2022: “I could have found out about the legal procedures that would take place during the proceedings before experiencing them; hearings and things that happened; I had no idea about this; I think I could have found out about that; I think I could have discovered the differences between public and private defenders and how to choose them, or the difference between a technical and a material defense – at least that it did not exist anywhere at the time; also, there are many legal terms that one faces in the system that were not part of my vocabulary; for example, pre-trial detention, isolation, disqualification […].” 144 Cf. Record of the raid on Scot Cochran’s residence (evidence file, folio 7301), and Expansion of the report on the raid on Scot Cochran’s residence dated January 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 7307). 145 146 Cf. Record of preliminary statement before the Special Unit for Sexual Crimes and Domestic Violence of the Public Prosecution Service in San José dated January 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 927). 147 Cf. Record of preliminary statement before the Special Unit for Sexual Crimes and Domestic Violence of the Public Prosecution Service in San José dated January 20, 2003 (evidence file, folio 928). 148 Cf. Record of the debate of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José of May 3, 2004 at 2:20 p.m. in the case against Scot Cochran and MPC (evidence file, folio 1617). 32