102. The Commission has indicated that the right to a fair trial includes the right to adequate time and means of preparing the defense, which is established in general terms in Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention.90 The Court has found that the right to defense must necessarily be exercised from the outset of the identification of an individual as a potential perpetrator of or participant in a punishable act, and its exercise only concludes once the process is complete. 91 Regarding the relationship between the evidence collected and the right to defense, the IACHR has highlighted the principle of audi alteram partem, which means the accused must be involved in the receipt and control of the evidence.92 For its part, the Court has found it to be a violation of the right to defense when the counsel for the defense cannot be present during a fundamental proceeding in the framework of a criminal process.93 103. Regarding the right to legal defense counsel provided by the State should a defendant not have one, the Inter-American Court has stated that “Appointing a public defender with the sole object of complying with the procedural formality would be equivalent to not providing expert defense. It is therefore crucial for the defense attorney to act diligently to protect the procedural guarantees of the accused, thereby preventing the rights of the accused from being violated94 and breaking the trust relationship.”95 To determine if a State could be internationally responsible for the actions or omissions of a public defender, the Court found that it should be evaluated "whether the action or omission of the public defender constituted inexcusable negligence or a manifest flaw in the exercise of the defense that had or could have had a decisive effect to the detriment of the interests of the defendant." 96 The Court added that "an unsubstantial disagreement with the defense strategy or with the outcome of a process will not be enough to have implications for the right to defense. Rather, and as noted, inexcusable negligence or a manifest flaw must be proven.”97 104. To make this determination, the Court highlighted several scenarios (not exhaustive) that comparative law has found to be sufficient for establishing that the right to defense has been violated. These include: “(a) failure to conduct the most minimal evidentiary activity; (b) failure to plead for the interests of the defendant; (c) lack of technical legal knowledge regarding the criminal process; (d) failure to file remedies to the detriment of the rights of the defendant; (d) failure to properly ground the remedies submitted; and (f) desertion of the defense.”98 105. In this case, the Commission recalls that the alleged victim did not have a defense attorney when the preliminary investigative steps were taken on February 28, 2008. On that day, the doctor who reported Manuela was interrogated, a visual inspection was made of her home, the alleged victim's genitals were examined, an autopsy was conducted on the body recovered from Manuela's house, and a complaint was supposedly collected from the father of the alleged victim. Manuela could not challenge or monitor any of these steps because she did not have a defense attorney. The IACHR also emphasizes that Manuela did not have legal defense during her interview with the investigator assigned to the case on February 29, 2008, from which the investigator concluded that the alleged victim had had an elective abortion. 106. These facts in themselves constitute a violation of the right to legal defense because, as indicated, the right must be executed from the beginning of the process and for all the steps in the process, with IACHR. Report No. 76/11. Case 11,769. Merits. J. Peru July 20, 2011, para. 248, and Report No. 78/15. Case 12,831. Merits (publication) Kevin Cooper. United States. October 28, 2015, para. 129. 91 Inter-American Court. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206. Para. 29. 92 IACHR. Report No. 76/11. Case 11,769. Merits. J. Peru July 20, 2011, para. 253, and Report No. 78/15. Case 12,831. Merits (publication) Kevin Cooper. United States. October 28, 2015, para. 129. 93 Inter-American Court. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 21, 2007, para. 154. 94 Inter-American Court. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303. Para. 157. Citing. Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 155. 95 Inter-American Court. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303. Para. 157. 96 Inter-American Court. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303. Para. 164. 97 Inter-American Court. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303. Para. 166. 98 Inter-American Court. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303. Para. 166. Original citations omitted. 90 19