191. The Court has previously held that this right must necessarily be exercised from the moment a person is accused of perpetrating or participating in an unlawful action and only ends when the proceeding concludes.163 In addition, it emphasized that a public defender must be effective, for which purpose the State must adopt all the appropriate measures.164 192. The Inter-American Commission, the Human Rights Committee and the European Court have agreed that the State cannot be held responsible for all deficiencies in the conduct of State-funded defense counsel.165 Nonetheless, the simple appointment of a public defender does not ensure the right to effective legal assistance.166 As noted by the Court, the appointment of a defense counsel for the sole purpose of complying with a procedural formality would be tantamount to not having a technical legal representation; therefore, it is imperative that the defense counsel act diligently in order to protect the procedural guarantees of the accused and thereby prevent his rights from being violated.167 Thus the State is responsible if the public defender fails to act or is inept in his conduct in such a way that makes it easy to draw the conclusion that effective legal representation was not provided.168 193. In the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, the Court found that the State violated the right to a defense since the victims’ attorneys’ failed to show up for an essential proceeding in the trial against the victims for the crime of drug trafficking. 169 Similarly, in the case of Luca v. Italy before the European of Human Rights, a person was convicted on the basis of a statement from a witness, which was given during the investigation, out of the presence of the defendant’s legal counsel. In these circumstances, the European Court found that the State violated the right to a defense and the right to the presumption of innocence inasmuch as said evidence could not be contested by the defense and was a substantial piece of evidence for conviction of the victim.170 194. In the instant case, the Commission has found as proven fact that Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles was arrested on August 2, 1994 and was not appointed a defense attorney until August 17, 1994, when the Twelfth Judge for Criminal Matters issued the “order to institute trial proceedings.” There is no evidence in the case file that the victims had a defense attorney at the time of giving their pre-indictment statement at the Offices of the Drug Enforcement Police and Interpol of Pichincha, which as has been noted above, was obtained through coercion and served as the basis for police report 134-JPEIP-CP1-94, which in turn was used by the courts, whose job it was to rule on the guilt of Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles. The Commission notes as well that on June 14, 1996, the Thirteenth Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha issued an order to begin trial proceedings and, specifically, requested that “the defendants appoint defense counsel within two days.” 163 IA Court of HR, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. México. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 154; IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 29; IA Court of HR, Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71; IA Court of HR, Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 148; IA Court of HR, Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No, 187, para. 105; and IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 62. 164 IA Court of HR, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. México. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 154; IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 154. 165 IACHR, Report No. 41/04, Case of 12.417, Merits, Whitley Myrie, Jamaica, October 12, 2004, para. 62. Human Rights Committee. Byrong Young v. Jamaica. Decision of December 17, 1997, para. 5.5; and Michael Adams v. Jamaica. Decision of November 20, 1996, para. 8.4. European Court of Human Rights. Kamasinsky v. Austria. Application no. 9783/82. Judgment of 19 December 1989, para. 65. 166 European Court of Human Rights. Artico v. Italy, Application no. 6694/74. Judgment of 13 May 1980, para. 33. IA Court of HR, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. México. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 154; IA Court of HR, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 155. 167 168 IACHR, Report No. 41/04, Case of 12.417, Merits, Whitley Myrie, Jamaica, October 12, 2004, para. 62. 169 IA Court of HR, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 21, 2007, para. 154. 170 European Court of Human Rights, Luca v. Italy. Application no. 33354/96. Judgment of 27 February 2001, para. 40. 45