21 with his co-accused, resulting in an ineffective defense in which his testimony was discredited by the court because it clearly conflicted with that of his co-accused. 77. The State argued that because the legal system provides for the possibility of the court with jurisdiction accepting the joint defense of several accused individuals and domestic courts did not see any conflict in this, their decision should be respected because it was consistent with national proceedings. The State thus contests the alleged violations of Article 8, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention, the State noted that Mr. Martínez Coronado enjoyed legal protection to make use of all available domestic remedies, which were heard and decided in accordance with existing laws. It argued that the fact that those were not decided in favor of Mr. Martínez Coronado does not mean the State has failed to meet its international obligation to ensure the right to legal protection. B. Considerations of the Court 78. It is important to note first that the Court considers that the analysis of the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives concerning the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention are related to the alleged lack of minimum guarantees for an adequate defense in this case and thus should be analyzed under Article 8(2) of the Convention. 79. This Court notes that in this case, it is an undisputed fact that on May 18, 1995, in his initial formal statement, Mr. Martínez Coronado asked that a public defender be appointed for him due to his financial situation. An attorney, JARL, was therefore appointed for him on May 19, 1995 (supra para. 36). It is an undisputed fact that he also acted as counsel for DA, Mr. Martínez Coronado’s coaccused. In addition, the attorney initially appointed was later replaced by RARM 77 as joint counsel for both of the accused (supra footnote on page 46). On October 26, 1995, the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Court of Chiquimula sentenced Mr. Martínez Coronado78 to death and Mr. DA to 30 years in prison. That decision (supra paras. 39 and 40), stated that: 80. [i]n his statement, the defendant [Martínez Coronado] denied having committed the acts described to him, indicating that he only heard of the incident because Mr. [DA] came to tell him that he had heard shots fired in his brother's house and he went with him (because he knew first aid) in order to help; that he heard this from [DA] around one o’clock on the seventeenth of May of the current year and later went with Román to his house to ask for help and did not find him; he denied having given the minor Jaime ten quetzals to keep quiet and having said something about being disappointed that the minor had been able to escape; [also,] the defendant [DA] denied having heard shots fired and said he had heard of the incident around six o’clock when he left his house, went toward his brother Juan's land, saw him on the ground, and went to look for help; [thus,] given the [b]latant contradictions the defendants engaged in [...] this Court decides to deny [their statements] any probative value.”79 81. This alleged contradiction between the statements of Manuel Martínez Coronado and DA constitutes the basis for the argument made by the Commission and the representatives that there was a violation of the right to defense. In the cassation remedy filed without formalities, it was The evidence file before this Court does not indicate the exact date on which RARM was appointed defense counsel in the case. The brief presented by the defense counsel to the Commission on February 18, 1998, stated that on June 4, 1996, a cassation remedy had been filed without formalities and that “from that point on, the presented counsel [RARM] worked in that capacity, incorporating the allegation regarding the double defense argued by his predecessor” (brief by RARM on February 18, 1998, IACHR procedural file, folios 823 to 830). 78 Both Mr. Martínez Coronado and Mr. DA were found by the court to be “guilty on seven counts of murder.” However, they received different sentences because of the court's reasoning detailed above (supra para. 39). 79 Judgment of the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Court of Chiquimula on October 26, 1995, supra. 77