B.1.3. Analysis of this specific case 115. It is proven that Mr. Valenzuela was detained by PNC officials on May 27, 1998, when firearms were found during a search of his home. 102 It has been proven that Mr. Valenzuela was subjected to acts of torture and sexual abuse, which were intentionally committed by State agents, with the purpose of making him agree to having participated in the commission of a criminal act (infra paras. 194 and 195). In addition, despite the fact that the State was aware of the acts of torture against Mr. Valenzuela on several occasions (supra para. 87), it did not initiate an investigation to determine the truth, capture, prosecute and eventually punish those responsible (infra parr. 144). Thus, this Court notes that Mr. Valenzuela was forced to testify against himself in order to accept having participated in a criminal act. Therefore, the Court considers that the State violated Articles 8(2) and 8(2)(g), in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. 116. Regarding the allegation of the Commission and the representatives regarding the violation of Article 8(3), the Court notes that Mr. Valenzuela, as recorded in the trial record 38 – 99, stated “that he decided to give his statement because [… they were] torturing him (supra para. 74). In addition, it is stated in the judgment of October 21, 1999, that Mr. Valenzuela "categorically denied the accusation made against him." However, the Sentencing Court of the Department of Quetzaltenango, which sentenced Mr. Valenzuela, did not confer probative value to said statement (supra para. 76). Therefore, this Court considers that the State is not responsible for the violation of Article 8(3) of the Convention, since Mr. Valenzuela Ávila was found guilty based on other means of evidence 103 and no probative value was granted to Mr. Valenzuela's confession made under torture, to support the death sentence. Based on the above, this Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on Article 10 of the IACPPT. 117. Alternatively, the representatives, both in the purpose of the pleadings and motions brief and in the petition, indicated that the State had violated, in addition to the articles already mentioned, articles 8(2)(a), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d), and 8(2)(e) and 25(2), all of the American Convention. However, with respect to Articles 8(2)(a), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d), and 8(2)(e) of the Convention, the Court finds no elements to determine their violation, since there are no factual assumptions establishing that the assistance of an interpreter or translator was necessary during the trial, or that in the case in question the alleged victim did not have an adequate technical defense during the process. While in the case of article 25(2) of the Convention, there is no evidence of any basis to verify its violation. Therefore, this Court does not find it necessary to analyze the alleged violation of the aforementioned articles. B.2. Right to appeal the conviction against Mr. Valenzuela 118. Both the Commission and the representatives argued that there was no opportunity for Mr. Valenzuela to appeal the conviction since, according to the standards of the Convention, certain categories such as the facts and the evaluation of the evidence are excluded from This Court notes that, where relevant, the official letter refers to Víctor Manuel Vásquez González; however, it is an undisputed fact that Mr. Valenzuela Ávila was identified for said search under that name. Cf. Official Letter No. 1709-98, supra. 103 Testimonial evidence from: JLM; JAML; GAP; forensic medical report made by Doctor ESC; report rendered by the expert EMO; report rendered by the expert AMO regarding the ballistic and mechanical expertise; reports rendered by the expert MRR; report of the expert reporting carried out by JSM and SZ album of photographs and video cassette that contains the filming made by the expert reporting and the sketch of the scene of the event that was ratified by the experts; photo album taken by the expert SFS; report rendered by doctor JNO; the record relating to the mechanical and ballistic expertise of the Honda Civic vehicle in which the victim was driving. Cf. Sentencing Court of the Department of Quetzaltenango. Judgment of October 21, 1999, supra. 102 31