80 accused, explicitly forbidden by domestic legislation and presumably obtained under torture; e) at the time of Daniel Tibi’s detention, the agents of the State had the obligation to immediately explain to him the legal and objective grounds for his detention; f) Daniel Tibi did not have access to a defense attorney during the first month of his detention, despite the fact that the Political Constitution of Ecuador recognized this right. Mr. Tibi rendered his pre-trial statement before the Public Prosecutor on September 28, 1995, without the presence of a defense attorney; g) on October 4, 1995, Judge Angel Rubio Game issued a court order to investigate the alleged crime and appointed attorney José Alejandro Chica as the court-appointed defense counsel for Mr. Tibi and other accused persons. Nevertheless, Mr. Chica never met with Mr. Tibi and he did not file any briefs or remedies in his favor; h) As a French citizen, Daniel Tibi should have been informed of his right to communicate with France’s diplomatic agents. The State did not notify the State of France of the detention, indictment, and prosecution of Mr. Tibi, disregarding commitments undertaken by the Ecuadorian State when it ratified the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; and i) Daniel Tibi was tortured with the objective of making him plead guilty. He was tortured at least seven times. This physical and psychological coercion not only constitutes a violation of the right to humane treatment, but also of the basic aspects of the right to fair trial. Pleadings of the State 166. The State argued that: a) regarding the complexity of the matter, “undeniably, processing about [33] suspects is complicated due to the number of steps that have to be taken, the size of the file, and the complexity of the crimes for which they were charged [,…] the investigations conducted, the statements rendered, the remedies filed, the evidence obtained, [...] were also complex and complicated, which led to the duration of the proceeding against Daniel Tibi.” In regards to the interested party’s procedural actions, “the petitioner clearly never cooperated with the investigations conducted by the agents of the State, despite which he was never incommunicado, nor did he facilitate a rapid investigation.” Finally, regarding the behavior of the judicial authorities, “undoubtedly the judicial authorities have acted in an agile manner, despite the complexity and the characteristics of the matter being investigated and the possibilities of the State; b) the guarantee set forth in Article 8(2) of the Convention “places the States under the obligation to gather incriminating material against those accused of a crime, to establish their guilt.” The State undertook this obligation in a fully responsible manner, both during the investigative phase and during the trial;”