Prosecutor’s Office, this Court notes that there is no dispute on this matter. Daniel García stated during the public hearing that he only had access to a lawyer five or six days after he was placed in arraigo. 249 251. The State argued that, during these stages, Daniel García exercised his own technical defense and that did not incriminate himself in any of his statements. In this regard, although it is undeniable that Article 8(2)(d) and (e) of the American Convention grants the accused the right to defend himself in criminal proceedings, the relevant point here is that Daniel García was not given the opportunity to have a defense counsel of his choice from the moment he was detained. On this point, the Court recalls that the right to defense must be exercised “from the moment a person is accused of being the perpetrator or participant of an illegal act.” 250 It is also important to recall that, as noted previously (supra para. 131), the act whereby Daniel García was accompanied by judicial police of the PGJEM in order to make a statement before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, on February 25, 2002, constituted an arrest. Moreover, Daniel García did not receive legal assistance during his arraigo, which lasted 47 days (supra para. 71). 252. As for the public defender assigned to Reyes Alpízar, the Court notes that the Commission based its argument regarding the alleged lack of independence of the appointed defense counsel on the fact that the First Collegiate Chamber of Tlalnepantla, when issuing a formal order of imprisonment, stated that the assigned defense counsel was “attached to the investigative body.” However, the State emphasized that the Public Defense Office of the state of Mexico was not part of the PGJEM, as claimed by the representatives and the Commission, but rather of the General Secretariat of Government, pursuant to the Law of the Public Defense Office of the state of Mexico, applicable at the time of the facts. Consequently, it is not clear to this Court if the expression “attached to the investigative body” refers to a relationship of dependence or whether, as the State suggests, it refers to a public defender who is attached to the Public Defense Office of the state of Mexico and is assigned to the agencies of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 253. On the other hand, the Commission did not mention any particular procedural act that was not carried out by the assigned defense counsel on behalf of his client Reyes Alpízar. The Commission indicated, in general terms, that the State has not shown that Reyes Alpízar’s defense counsel had duly advised him on his legal situation, or that he had taken steps to defend him, such as questioning the legality or arbitrariness of his detention. Nevertheless, during the public hearing, Daniel García explained that “eighty per cent of the appeals [he presented] are signed only by [him] and Reyes Alpízar, [since] the public defense never filed a single appeal and […] there is not a single motion signed or requested by the public defense counsel in the criminal case, everything was [done] by Reyes Alpízar and [him].” 251 This information was not disputed by the State. Moreover, Reyes Alpízar denounced that his public defender was present during the acts of torture to which he was subjected and was also present when he was forced to sign documents. 252 254. In relation to the foregoing, this Court notes that indeed, some of the appeals filed and the procedural actions were initiated directly by the alleged victims. 253 However, neither the 249 Cf. Statement of Daniel García Rodríguez during the public hearing in this case. 250 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 29, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador, supra, para. 95. 251 Cf. Statement of Daniel García Rodríguez during the public hearing in this case. Cf. Letter from Reyes Alpízar Ortiz requesting a hearing, addressed to the Agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office before the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Criminal case 88/2002. With reception stamp of September 22, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1550 et seq.). 252 253 See for example: Brief of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, Request for Hearing addressed to Agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office before the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Criminal case 88/2002. With date of receipt stamp of September 22, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1150 et seq.); Brief of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Criminal case 88/02. February 18, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1682 et seq.); Brief of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, March 31, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1700 et seq.), Brief of Daniel García Ortiz and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Criminal case 88/02. October 9, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1740 et seq.), Evidence hearing and Board of Experts. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, February 17, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1889 et seq.); Brief of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, unspecified motion before the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Case 88/2002. With date of -65-