27 any intervention by a defense counsel, and (c) the record of the confrontation between the accused on May 5, 1993, indicates that “during the […] procedure, only the two said accused [were] present, and not their corresponding defense counsel.” 106. Furthermore, it can be noted that the designation of law students as defenders occurred prior to the opening of the case to trial, at the procedural stage corresponding to the arguments of the oral hearing for sentencing; in other words, during the final arguments. At that stage, the alleged victims had already provided their preliminary statements and other evidentiary procedures had been conducted. The Court considers that it was necessary to have defense counsel from the start of the said procedural measures, due to their significance, their probative value, and their impact on the final decision. 107. Consequently, the Court concludes that Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo were not assisted by defense counsel at the start of the proceedings, the stage at which measures of essential importance were conducted such as the provision of their preliminary statements, the order of pre-trial detention, and the confrontation arranged by the trial judge, even though at the time of this last procedure the corresponding defenders had already been designated, on April 27, 1993, all of which resulted in a violation of Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention. 108. In addition, it is undisputed that the public defense system designated two law students to conduct the alleged victims’ defense. The Court underlines that on April 27, 1993, the State made this designation and appointed LCC, as defense counsel for Mr. Girón, and Edy Iván Bocanegra Conde, as defense counsel for Mr. Castillo (supra para. 44). The State itself indicated that the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time permitted the appointment of law students to conduct the defense in criminal cases. It is also worth mentioning that, in the affidavit he provided to this Court, Pedro Castillo Mendoza’s public defense counsel stated that he had exercised this function without having any experience in criminal matters and, especially, in matters involving the death penalty.99 This reveals that the defenders assigned to the alleged victims did not have adequate qualifications or experience in cases involving capital punishment. In the instant case, this situation is revealed by the fact that when the court ordered the reception of the statements of three witnesses offered by Mr. Giron’s defense, this procedure was not executed because the defense failed to comply with the legal formality of submitting the list of the questions he would ask the witnesses to the judge (supra para. 47). 109. It should be emphasized that according to the laws in force when the public defenders were appointed, the Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedure established the possibility of individuals subject to criminal proceedings being defended by “articled law clerks” who had not yet graduated. This was established in article 154 of the said code which stipulated that “[t]he judge may also appoint as defenders articled law clerks from the country’s universities and law firms and, to this end, those entities shall send lists to the president of the judicial body. The lists shall be updated each year”; this article was later derogated.100 However, as Cf. Affidavit provided to the Court by Edy Iván Bocanegra Conde dated February 26, 2019 (file of affidavits and expert opinions, fs. 2925 to 2935). 100 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Guatemala, article 154, supra. It should be underlined that the State has amended this article in the Code of Criminal Procedure currently in force, promulgated by Decree No. 5192, published on December 14, 1992, which entered into force following its publication in the Official Gazette, pursuant to its article 555 in Title IV on Derogation and Final Provisions. Also, article 93 establishes that “[o]nly active registered lawyers can be defense counsel. Judges shall not allow this provision to be violated by mandate,” and article 533 of the code stipulates as a requirement to occupy this function “[o]ne year of exercise of the profession or in judicial functions or in the prosecutorial function, which requires a law degree,” and “[p]roof of experience in criminal matters.” Meanwhile, regarding the legal aid clinics operated by law faculties as part of the Criminal Defense Public Service, article 544 establishes that “[s]tudents may not assume, autonomously, the task of defense counsel; they may only fulfill auxiliary collaborating functions, and may not substitute for the lawyers they assist in the acts inherent 99