proceedings. In this regard, the State recalled that these problems were known, addressed and remedied by the competent Court, in compliance with the procedural principles established in the Constitution and in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, it affirmed that the aforementioned procedural problem did not affect the alleged victim’s participation and defense in the domestic judicial proceedings. 141. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to adequate means to prepare the defense, the State argued that during the criminal trial all the videos and interviews mentioned by the Commission were included in the file and were provided during the hearing, and therefore could be accessed by Mr. Álvarez. It added that all these actions were carried out in accordance with Article 358134 of Venezuela’s Organic Code of Criminal Procedure in force at that time. 142. As to the testimony of Mr. José Rafael García and his arrest during the public hearing, the State argued that Mr. García had given false testimony during the hearing. Therefore, pursuant to Article 243135 of Venezuela’s Criminal Code, he was arrested and brought before the judicial authorities. Furthermore, at the time of his in flagrante arrest he had already answered 43 questions of the defense. B. Considerations of the Court 143. Although Article 8 of the American Convention is entitled “Right to a fair Trial” (judicial guarantees) its application is not limited to judicial remedies in the strict sense, “but rather the procedural requirements that should be observed 136” in the courts so that a person may defend himself adequately in the face of any action by the State that affects his rights.137 144. The Court has established that to ensure the full observance of judicial guarantees in a trial, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention, it is essential to observe all the requirements that “serve to protect, to ensure or to assert the entitlement to a right or the exercise thereof.”138 In other words, the “conditions that must be observed to ensure the adequate defense of those whose rights or obligations are under judicial consideration.”139 145. According to their position, the parties in this case have offered different arguments concerning the violations of due process committed during the criminal trial against Mr. Álvarez: i) procedural defects in the presentation of the accusation; ii) questions about the impartiality of the judges of first and second instance (Article 8); iii) hindering the defendant’s Article 358 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure: “Recordings and audiovisual evidence shall be presented during the hearing, by the usual means of reproduction.” 135 Article 243 of the Criminal Code: “Article 243 of the Criminal Code: “Any person who testifies as a witness before the judicial authority, who makes false statements, denies the truth or remains silent, entirely or in part, regarding the facts on which he is questioned shall be punished with a prison term of fifteen days to fifteen months. If the false testimony has been given against a suspect in a crime or in the course of a criminal trial, the prison term shall be from six to thirty months, and if those two circumstances coincide, it shall be eighteen months to three years. If the false testimony has been given against a suspect in a crime or in the course of a criminal trial, the prison term shall be from six to thirty months, and if those two circumstances coincide, it shall be eighteen months to three years. If the false testimony has resulted in a conviction of imprisonment, the prison term shall be three to five years. If the testimony has not been rendered under oath, the penalty shall be reduced by one-sixth to one-third.” 136 Cf. Judicial guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A, No. 9, para. 27; and Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016, Series C, No. 319, para. 209. 137 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 69; and Case Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019, Series C, No. 373, para. 63. 138 Cf. Habeas Corpus in emergency situations (Articles 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987, Series A, No. 8, para. 25; and Case J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013, Series C, No. 275, para. 258. 139 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, para. 28; and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 258. 134 28