107. Pursuant to the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State violated the right to humane treatment provided for in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mario Montesinos Mejía. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that due to the lack of any investigation whatsoever into the victim’s reports of mistreatment, the State also violated, to his detriment, Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Additionally, bearing in mind that the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture entered into effect in Ecuador on December 9, 1999, the Commission notes that, in accordance with the Court’s jurisprudence, as from that date “compliance with the obligations contained in this treaty is binding.”111 In this regard, the Commission deems that the absence of an investigation of the torture allegations in this case also constituted a violation of the obligations provided for in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, as from its entry into force. C. Right to a fair trial (Article 8112 of the Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof) 108. Bearing in mind the allegations of the parties and the facts proven, the Commission will rule on the following points regarding the proceedings undertaken against Mr. Montesinos: (i) The rule to exclude evidence obtained by coercion; (ii) the right to a defense; (iii) the principle of presumption of innocence; and (iv) reasonableness as to the length of criminal proceedings. 1. Right to exclude evidence obtained by coercion 109. The Inter-American Court has acknowledged that the rule to exclude evidence obtained through torture or cruel and inhuman treatment has been recognized by diverse treaties and international bodies for the protection of human rights,113 as well as the fact that “this rule is absolute and irrevocable.”114 110. For its part, the IACHR has held that: (…) in the case of a statement or testimony in which there is a well-founded suspicion or presumption that it was obtained by some type of coercion, be it physical or psychological, the […] courts must determine whether such coercion did actually exist. In the event that a statement or testimony obtained in these circumstances is admitted and used during the trial as an element of evidence or proof, that state may incur international responsibility.115 111 I/A Court H.R. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 159. 112 Article 8 of the Convention provides in this regard that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: (…) d. the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; (…) 3. A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind. 113 In this regard, the Committee Against Torture has held that “the obligations in articles 2 (whereby “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever…may be invoked as a justification of torture”), 15 (prohibiting confessions extorted by torture being admitted in evidence, except against the torturer), and 16 (prohibiting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) are three such provisions that “must be observed in all circumstances.” See: United Nations. Committee Against Torture. General Comment No. 2, ‘Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties’ January 24, 2008 (CAT/C/GC/2), paragraph 6. For its part, the Human Rights Committee has stated the following: “The guarantees of fair trial may never be made subject to measures of derogation that would circumvent the protection of nonderogable rights. (…) no statements or confessions or, in principle, other evidence obtained in violation of this provision may be invoked as evidence in any proceedings covered by article 14, including during a state of emergency, except if a statement or confession obtained in violation of article 7 is used as evidence that torture or other treatment prohibited by this provision occurred”. United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32, ‘Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial’ (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (vol. I)), paragraph 6. 114 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010 Series C No. 220, paragraph 165. (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs) 115 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Mexico, Chapter IV: The Right to Humane Treatment, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.100, Doc. 7. rev. 1, September 24, 1998, paragraph 320. 20