own defense, although it must be understood that this is valid only if the domestic law allows it. Thus, the Convention guarantees the right to legal assistance in criminal proceedings. 245 The Court has indicated that the defense provided by the State must be effective, for which purpose the State must take all appropriate measures. The Court has also stated that the person under investigation must have access to a technical defense when he makes his first statement. Preventing a defendant from receiving assistance from his defense attorney severely limits the right to defense, which causes a procedural imbalance and leaves the individual without protection against the exercise of punitive power. 246 247. The Court has considered that appointing a public defender for the sole purpose of complying with a procedural formality would be tantamount to not having a technical defense; therefore, it is imperative that the defense counsel act diligently in order to protect the procedural guarantees of the accused and thus prevent his rights from being violated and the relationship of trust from being broken. To this end, it is necessary that the institution of public defense, as a means through which the State guarantees the inalienable right of every person accused of a crime to be assisted by legal counsel, be provided with sufficient guarantees in terms of effective access to justice on an equal footing with the prosecutorial power. The Court has recognized that in order to fulfill this duty, the State must adopt all appropriate measures, including having suitable and trained defense lawyers that can act with operational autonomy. 247 248. Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention enshrines the “minimum guarantee” of the “right of the defense to examine witnesses present in court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses or experts, of other persons who can shed light on the facts,” thus giving effect to the principles of adversarial proceedings and procedural equality. The Court has pointed out that, among the guarantees recognized to those who have been accused, is the right to examine witnesses, both against them and in their favor, under the same conditions, in order to exercise their defense. 248 249. In the instant case, the right to defense is alleged to have been violated for the following reasons: a) Daniel García did not receive legal assistance at the time of his arrest, throughout the period when he was under arraigo or when he made statements before the Public Prosecutor’s Office; b) the public defender assigned to Reyes Alpízar was “attached to the investigating body”; c) the State has not demonstrated that Reyes Alpízar’s defense attorney had duly advised him on his legal situation, or that he had taken steps aimed at his defense, such as questioning the legality or arbitrariness of his detention, and d) in his first hearing before the Fifth Criminal Judge, Daniel García’s defense counsel requested that the Deputy Prosecutor be summoned to testify, in order to “demonstrate the facts to which the accused has linked him.” However, the judge not only denied this request, but also indicated that the “judicial actions were sufficient, since they were covered by ministerial authority.” 250. Regarding the lack of legal counsel provided to Daniel García from the moment of his arrest, during part of the time that he was under arraigo, and when he made statements before the Public 245 Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b), American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 25, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 396, para. 202. 246 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 62; Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 388, para. 143, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 59. 247 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 155; Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 157, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 122. 248 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 154, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 107. -64-