iii. counsel given the errors made by the State-appointed defense counsel in the criminal case against them for the crime of possessing firearms reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force; 62 the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence protected in Article 8(2) of the Convention and the guarantees protected in Article 8(2)g 63and 8(3) 64 of the same instrument, as well as Article 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture,65 because “in both criminal cases [the] courts accepted the prosecution statements [made on June 6 and 8, 1997, respectively, to the Public Prosecutor of the Federal District and the Federal Public Prosecutor], to establish the criminal responsibility of the defendants, indicating that there was no evidence of torture,” “placing the burden of proof on them and presuming [them] to be guilty.” The courts did not comply with the requirement to completely exclude “the statements made to the Public Prosecutor and the judicial statement rendered on June 8, 1997,” “given that according to international standards the existence of torture invalidated the use of this evidence.”66 56. Furthermore, the State acknowledged that it “failed to fulfill its general obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, established in Article 2 of the Convention, as well as the obligation contained in Article 6 of the Convention Against Torture.” 67 The analysis made by the Commission to reach these conclusions is contained in paragraphs 217 to 249 of the Report on Merits.68 57. The Court considers it important to emphasize that the State’s failure to meet its obligation to investigate the acts of torture in this case stems primarily from the authorities’ omission to open an independent inquiry into the criminal proceedings brought against the victims.69 The 62 Report on Merits, paras. 184 to 187 and 190 to 194. Article 8(2) of the Convention provides, inter alia, that “[d]uring the proceedings, every person has the right, in full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: […] g) right to not be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt.” 64 Article 8(3) of the Convention provides that: “A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind.” 65 Article 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes that: No statement or confession that is proven to have been made through torture can be admitted as evidence in proceedings, except when it is used against a person or persons accused of having obtained it through torture, and only as evidence that the statement was made. 66 Report on Merits, paras. 201, 210 and 215-216. 67 Report on Merits, para. 249. Article 2 (Duty to Adopt Provisions of Domestic Law) of the Convention establishes that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 are not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the State Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture stipulates that: In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the State Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture in any territory within their jurisdiction. The State Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The State Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. 68 The Commission included considerations, inter alia, on the “incompatibility of the Inter-American standards” of the “domestic legislation related to the use of torture and the right of defense.” 69 In this case, the judge presiding the criminal proceedings against Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre for the crime of possession of firearms for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, notified the Public Prosecutor of the complaint filed by the defendants alleging they had suffered torture (supra nota 33). The prosecutor merely submitted a report to the judge at this same proceeding against Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre, concluding that in his view, “no evidence was [found] to corroborate elements that constitute TORTURE.” He based his assessment on the fact that the physical injuries documented by the doctors of the Public Prosecutor’s Office were not serious, and argued that “these were incidental inconveniences resulting from the capture of two persons who were 63 17