54 the court order in which the full trial is opened the Judge will order, in its case, that the accused party appoint his defense counsel or that the state do so if it must be appointed ex officio. If this statement were affirmative, he will immediately proceed to make the appointment.” 152. It is stated that Mr. López Álvarez did not have the opportunity to offer his preliminary examination statement in the presence of his defense counsel, with whom he had communication some days after his arrest. Therefore, he was not guaranteed the right to have legal counsel pursuant to Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention. 153. On the other hand, it has also been proven that Mr. López Álvarez made several appointments and substitutions of legal counsel throughout the process (supra para. 54(18)), reason for which this Court does not have sufficient elements of evidence to determine if the right of the alleged victim to be assisted by legal counsel in the terms of Article 8(2)(e) of the Convention was violated. 154. This Tribunal considers that the mentioned Articles 229 and 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedures were incompatible with the parameters of the American Convention, and it also observes that said internal norms are no longer valid in Honduras for the processes followed under the current Code of Criminal Procedures. * * * 155. Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez stated in his preliminary examination statement that “he was strongly coerced [in the Office of Criminal Investigation], through physical and mental mistreatment, into incriminating [himself...] with the questions that [the state agents were] making […],” despite which the alleged victim did not accept the charges (supra para. 54(14)). In consideration of that expressed by Mr. López Álvarez, which was not debated by the State, and the specifics of the present case, this Court considers that the alleged victim was subject to said acts with the purpose of weakening his mental resistance and making him incriminate himself for the fact he was being charged with, in violation of the stated in Article 8(2)(g) of the Convention. * * * 156. The previous consideration lead the Court to conclude that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d), and 8(2)(g), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, in detriment of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 13 AND 24 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE SAME (Freedom of Thought and Expression, Right to Equal Protection and Obligation to Respect Rights) 157. Arguments of the Commission: a) it did not argue violation of Article 13 of the Convention;