436. This Court will now analyze the alleged violations of the right to defense of Jorge Martínez (Group 4), Luis and Enrique Archbold Jay (Group 3) and Rafael Rojas (Group 2). In this regard, the Court has pointed out that the right of defense is a central component of due process that requires the State to treat the individual, at all times, as a true subject of the proceedings, in the broadest sense of this concept and not simply as an object thereof. 612 C.2.1. Situation of Jorge Martínez Meléndez (Group 4) C.2.1.1. Alleged violation of the right to hear and present evidence 437. In the instant case, Mr. Martínez Meléndez's right to defense was allegedly violated because he was not allowed to have direct access to the evidence. According to his representatives, Mr. Martínez asked the trial court to be present and to be able to comment on the introduction of any documentary or testimonial evidence; however, he was prevented from doing so during the introduction of some evidence, which meant that he was unable to know its content or make direct comments on it. 438. In their arguments, the representatives did not specify on which occasions Mr. Martínez did not have the opportunity to hear and present evidence. They merely cited judgment No. 2008-232 issued by the Third Chamber of Criminal Cassation, which mentions the dates of hearings in which, allegedly, this situation would have arisen. Therefore, the Court will now analyze only the hearings mentioned in the excerpt of the cassation judgment cited by the representatives in their arguments. These trial records refer to the hearings of May 24 and 25, July 13, August 1, 3, 9, 16 and 23 and September 5, 8, 13 and 19, 2006. 613 439. First, it appears from the records that during hearing No. 38 held on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, Mr. Martínez was present at all times. 614 During this hearing, his representative informed the trial court that he always wished to have direct access to the evidence. 615 Subsequently, due to a medical appointment, Mr. Martínez indicated that he would be unable to attend the hearing programed for the following Friday, so “the president of the court indicate[d] that […] neither of the two hearings would be held on Friday.” 616 440. On Thursday, May 25, 2006, the trial court announced that “the first hearing today cannot be held, since the defendant Jorge Martínez has stated on several occasions that he wishes to be present both in the incorporation of the documentary evidence and in the presentation of the testimonial evidence. Therefore, there will be no hearing in the morning, given his absence.” 617 That same day, in the afternoon, the trial hearing took place, but unlike other court records, this one does not show that Mr. Martínez was absent; nor does it show that his defense counsel expressed his disagreement with the holding of the hearing, in the event that his client was not present. Therefore, this Court does not have elements to rule on the hearing of May 25, 2006. It should be noted that before this hearing concluded, it was announced that “the parties are summoned for the continuation of the trial tomorrow, Friday, May 26, at 8.30 am.” 618 612 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 29, and Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319, para. 189. 613 Cf. Decision No. 2008-00232 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of March 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 33970). 614 Cf. Record of Hearing No. 38 of May 24, 2006 (evidence file, folio 24887). 615 Cf. Record of Hearing No. 38 of May 24, 2006 (evidence file, folio 24889). 616 Cf. Record of Hearing No. 38 of May 24, 2006 (evidence file, folios 24887 and 24889). 617 Cf. Record of Hearing No. 39 of May 25, 2006 (evidence file, folios 24891 to 24892). 618 Cf. Record of Hearing No. 39 of May 25, 2006 (evidence file, folio 24894). 135