93. The representatives also argued that the letter of January 20, 2003, addressed to the United States Embassy did not comply with the formal requirements to consider that the right to consular assistance had been ensured, because it was addressed to a body that did not have competence to provide consular protection, and contained errors in the identification of the alleged victim, referring to Scot Cochran erroneously as “Scott Tomas Tochson.” They also considered that it could not be claimed that consular assistance had existed because, “never, over the last 20 years, has any United States diplomatic or consular authority communicated with the victim,” and that the criminal case file only shows that, on March 19, 2003, the Consulate of the United States of America in San José forwarded a copy of a letter that Scot Cochran’s sister had sent to them inquiring about his health and that, on September 10 that year, the United States Embassy sent an official communication to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which it asked for a guarantee that he was receiving adequate treatment for his ailment. Therefore, they asked the Court to declare the violation of “Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and 7(4) and 8(1) of the American Convention.” 94. The State contested the allegations of the Commission and the representatives, arguing that the information they provided was imprecise and incomplete. This was because the criminal case file contained several documents showing that Scot Cochran had communicated with the Embassy of his country, and this also “reveals that not only was he aware of his right to consular assistance, but also that he effectively put this in practice, requesting assistance and receiving it, without the State of Costa Rica imposing any restriction.” 95. The State also indicated that it was an uncontested fact, supported by evidence, that “on the day he was arrested” the Embassy of his country was informed of his situation. Furthermore, it indicated that the day of Scot Cochran’s arrest, judicial control was exercised over this measure that deprived him of his liberty; a criminal judge decided the request for the precautionary measure of pre-trial detention and, “when issuing the ruling, he was advised that the Consulate of his country would be informed of his situation so that he could have consular assistance if he so wished and he could enter into real and effective contact with the United States Embassy.” 96. The State insisted that, when issuing the order for pre-trial detention, Scot Cochran was advised that his country’s Consulate would be informed of the precautionary measure adopted and, in this way, his right to consular assistance was realized and, as of that time, he entered into real and effective contact with the United States Embassy. The State added that “[a]lthough it is true that the notification document does not expressly note that the alleged victim has the right to communicate with the Consulate, it cannot be considered that this proves the contrary, taking into consideration that subsequent facts show that he was aware of that right and exercised it fully.” Consequently, according to the State, this document records that Scot Cochran was informed of his right to information on consular assistance. It added that, as of that time, the United States diplomatic representation had maintained communication, thus implementing the right to consular assistance. 97. It also argued that the representatives sought to attribute responsibility to the State “because none of Scot [Cochran’s] defense counsel contacted the United States Consulate ‘on their own initiative,’ which was evidently an error, because the State’s obligations are to advise the consulate of the situation and the accused of his right, and not to obstruct any communication that it is sought to establish.” The State also indicated that “it is unable to provide [further] evidence of the exchange of 27