66 of reasonable term and was clearly ineffective, all this in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that same Convention. 105. With regard to the amparo remedy and the motions to restrain innovation and register the complaint, the Court deems that these are ancillary proceedings, which depend on the administrative land claim proceeding that was already deemed ineffective by the Court. Therefore, it is unnecessary to enter into further details. b) Criminal proceeding against members of the Community 106. The representatives alleged that the proceeding against unnamed members of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community for the crimes of invasion of property, grave coercion and theft, before the Trial Court for Criminal Matters and Correctional Affairs for Minors of the Judicial Circumscription of Concepción (supra paras. 50.79 to 50.90), was conducted without due procedural guarantees, as the members of the Community were not allowed to appoint a defense attorney and were unable to exercise their right to defense, which did not allow them to exercise other rights such as prior and detailed communication of the charges and the right to examine and to offer witnesses and expert witnesses. 107. The State, in turn, asserted that it granted full participation of the attorneys for the alleged victims and all procedural and legal mechanisms to attain their rights. 108. With regard to judicial or procedural guarantees embodied in Article 8 of the Convention, this Court has stated that the proceeding must comply with all formalities “designed to protect, to ensure or to assert the entitlement to a right or the exercise thereof”184, in other words, the “conditions necessary to ensure the adequate representation or management of the interests or claims of those whose rights or obligations are under judicial consideration”.185 109. The Court has established that “[i]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine domestic proceedings”,186 to determine whether they are compatible with the American Convention. In light of the above, it is necessary to consider the domestic proceedings as a whole, including the decisions of appellate courts. The role of the international Court is to establish whether the procedure as a whole, including admission of evidence, was in accordance with the Convention.187 110. Given the specific characteristics of the case and the nature of the alleged abridgments asserted by the representatives, as well as the pleadings of the State, 184 See Case of Lori Berenson, supra note 2, para. 132; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 181, para. 147, and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 118. 185 See Case of Lori Berenson, supra note 2, para. 132; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 181, para. 147, and Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 184, para. 118. 186 See Case of Lori Berenson, supra note 2, para. 133; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 181, para. 146, and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 10, para. 200. 187 See Case of Lori Berenson, supra note 2, para. 133; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez, Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 189.