56 criminal proceeding conducted against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, evidentiary value was attributed to the statements and self-incriminating confessions obtained under duress. The representatives, in addition, observed the following irregularities: the reversal of the burden of proof to the detriment of the accused; the presumption of guilt associated with the admission of a series of tainted or insufficient evidence and the lack of a proper defense and effective remedies. In this respect, the representatives alleged that the appeal through the filing of a direct amparo was ineffective, among other elements, due to the erroneous application of the principle of procedural immediacy, the non-exclusion of evidence obtained under torture and because it was not possible to contest the detention and the solitary confinement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel given that the court considered that “it was not the appropriate procedural moment.” Furthermore, the Commission and the representatives claimed that the accusation of the victims for the alleged acts of torture committed against them did not give rise to investigations ex officio; the proceeding was conducted under a jurisdiction that was not competent, within an unreasonable time; that essential procedures were not adopted; and that an effective remedy was not afforded to the alleged victims in order for them to contest the exercise of the military jurisdiction. 139. The State indicated that, in the proceeding conducted against the victims, all the judicial guarantees were strictly respected and that the defense had at its disposal and thoroughly used several simple and expedite remedies. It added that the remedies were effective, insofar as some of the charges were withdrawn and some items of evidence that were not initially taken into account were assessed, thanks to the filing of such remedies. It indicated that “the fact that the appeals filed by the defense were not solved, in general, favorably” does not imply that the victims “did not have access to effective remedies.” As to the investigation for the alleged torture, the State pointed out that the remedies filed by the defense before competent, impartial and independent judicial bodies provoked far-reaching discussions to shed light on the alleged torture. Moreover, it indicated that there is no element that allows inferring that the court or any other state agent intended to delay the investigation. b) prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; c) adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; d) the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; 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; f) the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; g) the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty; and h) the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 3. A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind. 210 Article 25.1 of the American Convention (Right to Judicial Protection) establishes that: 1. Everyone 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. 211 Article 2 of the American Convention (Domestic Legal Effects) provides that: [W]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.