due in part to its irrevocable and irreversible nature, the death penalty is a form of punishment that differs in substance as well as in degree in comparison with other means of punishment, and therefore warrants a particularly stringent need for reliability in determining whether a person is responsible for a crime that carries a penalty of death.62 86. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission will review the allegations of the petitioners in this case, with a rigorous level of scrutiny to ensure, in particular, that the rights to life, fair trial and judicial protection, among others set forth in the American Convention, have been respected by the State. B. Rights to a Fair Trial63 and to Judicial Protection64 in the criminal procedure 1. General Considerations 87. In line with that indicated in the previous section, the IACHR reiterates the fundamental importance of ensuring full and strict compliance with the guarantees of due process to prosecute people for crimes that carry a death penalty sentence. As the Commission has stated, “the States that still maintain the death penalty must, without exception, exercise more stringent control of the observance of the judicial guarantees in those cases”65 in order to ensure that any deprivation of life through such sentence is in strict compliance with the requirements established in the applicable Inter-American Human Rights instruments.66 88. In general terms, the Court has stated that the right to defense must be necessarily exercised as from the moment a person is accused of being the perpetrator or participant of an illegal act and ends when the jurisdiction thereby ceases.67 89. The Commission considers that an adequate and effective exercise of due process guarantees significantly depends on the technical defense available to the defendant in criminal proceedings. The InterAmerican Court has pointed out that the right to a defense includes a defense that is effective, timely, exercised by skilled people, strengthens the defense of the concrete interest of the accused, and is not simply 62 IACHR, Report No. 78/07, Case 12.265, Merits (Publication,) Chad Roger Goodman, Bahamas, October 15, 2007, para. 34. 63 Article 8 of the American Convention sets forth, on the relevant, the following: 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as is guilt has not been proven according to the law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: (…) (c) adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; (…) (e) the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law (…). 64 Article 25 of the American Convention establishes, on the relevant, the following: 1. Every person has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 65 IACHR. The Death Penalty in the Inter-American System of Human Rights: from Restrictions to Abolition, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.68, December 3, 2011, p. 91. 66 IACHR, Report No. 54/14, Petition 684-14, Admissibility, Russell Bucklew and Charles Warner, United States of America, July 21, 2014, para. 39. 67 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 29. Citing mutatis mutandis I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 148. 15