62. The Inter-American Court in the case of Zegarra Marin vs. Peru 75 emphasized the relevance of the motivation or the reasoning of the judgment, in accordance with Article 8.1 of the American Convention, in order to guarantee the principle of presumption of innocence, mainly in a conviction, which must express the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence to confirm the accusatory hypothesis; the observance of the rules of sound criticism in the assessment of the evidence, including those that could generate doubt of criminal responsibility; and the final judgment that derives from this assessment. In a specific case, the judgment must reflect the reasons why it was possible to obtain conviction on the accusation and criminal responsibility, as well as the assessment of the evidence to disprove any hypothesis of innocence, and only then be able to confirm or refute the accusatory hypothesis. The foregoing would allow to disprove the presumption of innocence and determine criminal responsibility beyond any reasonable doubt. 63. Further, according to the Inter-American Court, the right to effective domestic remedies, referred to in Article 25(1) of the Convention,76 is not limited to its mere formal existence, but that “they must be effective, that is to say, they must produce results or responses to the violations of the rights contemplated in the Convention” 77 and must allow “the judicial protection required to be achieved, where appropriate.” 78 The importance of the effectiveness of domestic remedies lies in the fact that they constitute the safeguard of the person against the arbitrary exercise of public power and therefore, the Court has indicated that “the lack of effective domestic remedies places the victim in a state of defenselessness.”79 64. The Inter-American Commission has further stated that the right to due process established under Article XXVI of the American Declaration must be interpreted and applied in the context of death penalty prosecutions to give stringent effect to the most fundamental substantive and procedural due process protections. 80 The Commission underscores that the State has the duty to disclose all exculpatory evidence in its possession as well as information favorable to the accused. In particular, in cases involving the death penalty, the State has an enhanced obligation to guarantee that no evidence favorable to the accused is withheld, as this could change the outcome of the trial and give rise to an arbitrary deprivation of life.81 65. The petitioners claim that the State has breached the alleged victim’s rights to due process as a result of several inconsistencies that occurred at trial and further that the alleged victims were sentenced through a miscarriage of justice. The State claims that all due process guarantees were respected. 66. The Inter-American Commission must now determine whether the criminal proceedings in the instant case satisfied the above-mentioned inter-American standards. The Commission highlights in this regard that it is the competence of domestic courts, and not of the Commission, to interpret and apply domestic law, and, in the instant case, to determine whether the alleged victims are innocent or guilty. However, the IACHR must ensure that any criminal proceedings that may involve the application of the death penalty would be strictly consistent with the requirements set forth in the American Declaration and Convention. 82 67. The IACHR notes, based on the facts established in this report, that important doubts existed about the gun used in the killing. The Privy Council made further observations on discrepancies, specific to ballistics evidence, I/A Court H.R., Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 331., para. 147. 76 Article 25.1 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention provides that: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 77 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez Vs. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Serie C No. 70, para. 191. 78 I/A Court H. R., Case of Tibi Vs. Ecuador. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Serie C No. 114, para. 131. 79 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal Vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Serie C No. 71, para. 89. 80 See similarly Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra, para. 136 (concluding that "[b]ecause execution of the death penalty is irreversible, the strictest and most rigorous enforcement of judicial guarantees is required of the State so that those guarantees are not violated and a human life not arbitrarily taken as a result."). IACHR, Report No. 13/14, Case 12.422. Merits (Publication). Abu-Ali Abdur’ Rahman. United States. April 2, 2014, para. 53. 81 IACHR. Report 53/13, Case 12.864, Ivan Teleguz, United States. July 15, 2013, para. 98. 82 See similarly, IACHR, Report No. 78/15, Case 12.831. Merits (Publication). Kevin Cooper. United States. October 28, 2015, para. 149. 75 14