judicial bodies, may require the Court to examine the respective domestic proceedings68 to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.69 81. It is important to point out that the Court, when referring to the judicial guarantees protected in Article 8 of the Convention, also known as procedural guarantees, has established that in order to ensure that these guarantees truly exist in a proceeding, according to the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention, it is necessary to observe all the requirements that “serve to protect, ensure or assert entitlement to a right or the exercise thereof”70, in other words, which “comply with the terms required to ensure the adequate defense of those whose rights or obligations are under judicial consideration.”71 The aforesaid provision of the Convention contemplates a system of guarantees that condition the exercise of ius puniendi by the State and that seek to ensure that the accused or defendant is not subject to arbitrary decisions, as “due guarantees” must be observed that ensure the right to due process in the corresponding procedure.72 Moreover, this Court has stated that “every person subject to a trial of any nature before a State body must have the assurance that said body […] will act according to the terms of the procedure legally established for hearing and deciding the case.”73 82. Furthermore, the Court considers it pertinent to recall that in cases such as this, in which the proceedings carried out in the context of a criminal case and in subsequent judicial remedies are being called into question, the organs of the Inter-American System of Human Rights do not operate as an instance of appeal or review of judgments issued in domestic processes,74 nor do they act as a criminal court that analyzes the criminal responsibility of individuals. Their function is to determine the compatibility of the actions carried out in said processes with the American Convention and,75 in particular, to analyze the actions and omissions of domestic judicial bodies in light of the guarantees protected in Article 8 of that treaty.76 68 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 247, para. 18. 69 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 146, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits, para. 18. 70 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 147, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 95. 71 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. Serie A No. 9, para. 28, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 95. 72 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. 28, and Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 117. 73 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 77, and Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 80. 74 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 62, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 37. 75 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 83; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90, and Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 37. 76 Cf. Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits, para. 220, and Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 144. 26