28 this Court’s case law has indicated repeatedly, respect for the guarantees of due process is more rigorous and strict in case involving the death penalty as a punishment, because “this punishment entails the deprivation of the most fundamental of rights, the right to life, with the consequent impossibility of reversing the punishment once it has been carried out.”101 Therefore, in criminal cases in which the State exercises its ius puniendi, and in which the imposition of the punishment, such as capital punishment or the deprivation of liberty, has an irreversible effect on the rights to life and to personal liberty, this Court considers that the provision that the defense can be conducted by law students also constitutes a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. 110. Consequently, the Court considers that the persons designated as defenders in this case did not meet the requirement of being legal professionals because they were students who did not have the experience, competence and qualifications to conduct the defense of the defendants and, in this specific case, this had an evident impact on the defense of at least one of the accused because, due to the defender’s inexperience, the evidence he had requested could not be provided.102 Therefore, Article 8(2)(e) of the Convention was violated. 111. Based on the foregoing, taking into account that the alleged victims were not appointed defense counsel from the start of the proceedings and that the aforementioned provisions did not allow them to have a suitable, qualified and effective defense to face criminal proceedings that could culminate with the imposition of the death penalty, as occurred in this case, because their defense fell to law students rather than to a law professional, this Court considers that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights established in Article 8(2)(e) and 8(2)(d) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 4(1) of the Convention, and to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza. 112. The representatives also alleged the violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention, because the judge suspended the procedure of receiving the testimonial evidence proposed by Mr. Girón’s defender and, without grounds, rejected the list of questions that was submitted due to failure to comply with a formal requirement. They also alleged the violation of Article 8(2)(c) because the defense counsel did not have time to prepare the defense. Furthermore, they argued that the alleged victims were obliged to testify against themselves because, during their preliminary statements, they were “told not only to promise to tell the truth, but also that this statement would help their legal situation to be decided with justice,” in violation of Article 8(2)(g), in relation to Article 8(3) of the Convention. This Court does not find it necessary to examine the said guarantees because it considers that the State’s failure to provide an appropriate and professional defense opportunely had an impact on the other guarantees of Article 8(2) of the Convention alleged by the representatives. B.2. Right to appeal the alleged victims’ conviction 113. In its consistent case law, the Court has referred to the content and scope of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, as well as to the standards that must be observed to guarantee in the latter’s functions. Student are allowed to accompany lawyers during proceedings and debates, but may not intervene in these.” Available at: https://www.congreso.gob.gt/detalle_pdf/Decrees/1220). 101 Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 85. 102 According to the expert opinion of the lawyer, Luis Arroyo Zapatero, it is now possible to identify the “elements that constitute an effective legal defense in a case involving the death penalty and, it is very evident that a legal defender who is neither a lawyer nor a person with experience in intervening effectively in criminal proceedings in which the life of the accused is at stake cannot be considered an effective legal defender of someone sentenced to death; and someone who was not even a lawyer because they were both articled law clerks” (file with evidence, affidavits and expert opinions, fs. 2979 to 2999).