226. Consequently, based on the foregoing considerations, this Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of its obligation to investigate with due diligence, pursuant to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the IACPPT, acts of torture to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. VIII.3. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES 235 IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS 236 A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission A.1. The rule of exclusion of evidence obtained under coercion (Article 8(3) of the American Convention) 227. The Commission and the representatives argued that Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar testified before the PGJEM during the time when it has been determined that they were subjected to pressure and mistreatment for such purposes. The complaint regarding this abuse was lodged by each one of them when they were brought before a judge, and subsequently through various appeals that they filed; however, these remedies did not prove effective. They noted that their statements were not only excluded from the criminal proceedings, but were used as the central element of conviction to support the formal order of imprisonment against the alleged victims and are included in the case file as evidentiary elements that have a bearing on their possible responsibility and involvement in the case. 237 228. In relation to this point, the representatives added that the conviction judgment of May 12, 2022, contains a section on evidence obtained under coercion, “although it does not meet the criteria for exclusion of evidence.” They added that a “reason for supervening and aggravated liability is that the judgment refers in a fragmented manner to the exclusion of some evidence obtained during the period of arraigo, using only a temporal criterion during which said measure was applied, but does not consider arbitrary detention and torture as sources of unlawfulness, as sources related but differentiated from arraigo and which, due to their magnitude and seriousness, generated a continuous and permanent cycle of unlawfulness based on the arbitrary detentions, aggravated with acts of torture.” In view of the failure to exclude such evidence until it had been duly investigated and disproved, they concluded that the State violated Article 8(3) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 229. The State reiterated its arguments concerning the non-existence of acts of torture against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. In this regard, it held that it was not possible to presume a failure to exclude evidence when the existence of acts of torture had not been proven. It added that, without prejudice to the foregoing, and taking into account that the criminal proceedings have not yet concluded, it would be up to the judge in the case to grant evidentiary value and decide on the exclusion of evidence. It further indicated that it would be up to the First Instance Criminal Judge of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla to determine the exclusion of evidence when delivering the judgment in criminal case 236/2012. Consequently, it argued that the Court cannot establish non-compliance with the rule of exclusion of evidence obtained under 235 Article 8 of the American Convention. 236 Article 1(1) of the American Convention. They held that the same occurs with the statement of Raúl Loyola Malagón, who claimed that he was forced to make a false statement, and the disputed statements of Francisco Javier Pereira Solache and Francisco Pérez Mendoza, who did not appear to ratify their statements during the criminal proceedings, despite having been summoned to appear on several occasions. 237 -59-