24 93. The State argued that, all the actions in the criminal proceedings against Messrs. Girón and Castillo had been conducted with respect for the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence, the criminal principle of temporality and in conformity with the criminal laws in force at that time. It also argued that the mechanism of non-professional defense counsel was established in the Code of Criminal Procedure; and such persons must “be of age, honorable, suitable, and in exercise of their civil rights.” According to the State, this provided “valuable practice for non-graduates; however, it had been discarded.” Based on these considerations, the State asked the Court not to declare its responsibility for the violation of Article 8(2), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention. B. Considerations of the Court 94. First, it should be noted that the representatives alleged the violation of rights that had not been cited by the Commission. In this regard, it has been this Court’s consistent case law that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided these relate to the facts contained in that document.85 95. The Court has indicated that the right to due process refers to the series of requirements that must be observed during proceedings to ensure that individuals are able to defend their rights satisfactorily in relation to any act of the State, carried out by any public authority whether administrative, legislative or judicial, that could affect those rights.86 96. In accordance with the American Convention, due process translates, above all, into the “judicial guarantees” recognized in its Article 8. This article contains a series of guarantees that condition the exercise of the State’s ius puniendi and that seek to ensure that the accused or the defendant is not subject to arbitrary decisions, because “the due guarantees” must be observed to ensure the right to due process of law whatsoever the procedure involved.87 The maximum procedural guarantees must be respected starting with the first measures taken in legal proceedings in order to safeguard the defendant’s right of defense.88 Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure the existence of the elements required for the greatest balance between the parties in order to guarantee the due defense of their interests and rights and this means, among other matters, that the adversarial principle applies.89 97. The right of defense has two aspects during criminal proceedings: on the one hand, the actions of the defendant, the principal example of this being the possibility of providing a free statement concerning the facts attributed to him and, on the other, the technical defense Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 133. 86 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 217. 87 Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b, American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 28, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 64. 88 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 174 and 175, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 174. 89 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 132, and Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 152. 85