62 B.2 Considerations of the Court 246. This Court would reiterate the views it outlined in Chapter VIII-2 regarding the alleged violation of articles 8(1), 8(2)(d) and 25 of the Convention, on which the applicants based the request to overturn the criminal proceedings against them, thereby restoring their military ranks and their civil and political rights. The Court has held, in this regard, that when procedural decisions stem from torture, cruel treatment or any other type of coercion, the consequences of such a violation of the right to a fair trial can be terminated decisively by overturning the proceedings.219 The Court also deems that counsel in all proceedings must be provided by a law professional in order to meet the requirements of qualified defense, through which the accused at trial are advised, inter alia, on the possibility of appealing acts that may undermine their rights. To prevent the accused from being advised by counsel is to limit the right to defense, which leads to procedural imbalance and leaves the individual unprotected before the sanctioning authority.220 247. Nevertheless, the applicants did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Military Judge of Criminal Investigation or the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces in the domestic proceedings, nor did they request that the members of these courts be disqualified. This Court also notes that in the instant matter, the applicants did have the opportunity to appeal the conviction that culminated in the sentences of disqualification and dismissal before two of the highest national criminal courts in the general jurisdiction, that is, they had access to an appropriate court to lodge all their appeals and counteract those decisions that the complainants had violated their guarantees of due process. This did clearly occur, and the grievances and errors stemming from the military process were resolved and corrected in the general courts. 248. This Court therefore finds that the violations declared, taken in the overall context of the case, with its particular details and the actions of the courts in the general jurisdiction, do not justify an order to overturn the criminal proceedings lodged against the applicants, and therefore it dismisses this plea. C. Measures of satisfaction requested C.1 Arguments of the parties 249. Representatives Vega and Sommer asked for publication of the “recognition and responsibility for the violations committed by the State of Argentina” in two widely read national newspapers. 250. The Inter-American Defenders also asked for publication of the Court’s judgment at least once in the Official Gazette and in another widely read national newspaper; for a public ceremony to be held recognizing the State’s responsibility and apologizing publicly to the alleged victims; and for the names of the alleged victims to be struck from public registries where they are listed as a consequence of the full and permanent disqualification against them and in criminal records resulting from this case. 219 Cfr. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, par. 108 and Case of Cabrera García y Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220, par. 166. 220 Cfr. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, par. 61 and 62 and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, par. 164.