especially when dealing with issues of high public interest and specifically the development of an oral, public, and contradictory hearing. In this sense the art. 8.5 of the Convention states that "[c]riminal proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice." 154. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State did not guarantee the right to be tried by an independent and impartial judge or tribunal, enshrined in Article 8.1 of the Convention, against Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga. 1.4 Suitable means for defense preparation 155. The Commission notes that during the first instance trial, most of the evidence requested by the defendants was denied. In particular, it was demonstrated that of the evidence requested by Palacio, the court denied the linguistic expertise of the text of the article "No a las mentiras" and was considered in the second instance judgment as a probative element that "was not relevant to the case, because the imputed offense, slanderous insult, is one of those committed through social media -in this case written press- and therefore it was enough to read the article, as a common citizen, to establish its meaning and scope, being therefore adequate according to the procedural rule, the appreciation of said expertise request by the Temporary Judge... "However, both judicial decisions were based on the interpretation of the paragraph and the text published by Palacio, so that an expert could have shed light on the matter and offer a technical point of view so that the judges can make a broad assessment. With the denial of this evidence, Emilio Palacio Urrutia was prevented from exercising its defense broadly and with elements that could contribute substantially to the case. 156. The IACHR recalls that "the possibility of providing counter-evidence is a right of the defense to invalidate the accusatory hypothesis, contradicting it by means of counter-proofs or evidence of acquiescence compatible with alternative hypotheses (counter-hypotheses), which in turn the prosecution has the burden to invalidate"172. According to the State's assertion, "with respect to the linguistic expertise that was denied to the petitioners, this refusal was framed within the provisions of Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code" whose provision stated that "experts refers to professionals specialized in different subjects that have been accredited as such, by a previous qualification process of the Regional Directorates of the Council of the Judiciary". In the case of the petitioners, the requested expert opinion was denied since the linguistic expert requested by the defendant Emilio Palacio Urrutia, did not appear accredited in the Provincial Directorate of the Council of the Judiciary”173. 157. It should be noted that the State does not dispute the denial of the evidence, but attributes the situation to a formality. The Commission points out that the fact of producing or requiring means of evidence favorable to the accused of a crime constitutes a right and not an obligation. According to the Inter-American Court, "States have the obligation to ensure that, at all stages of the respective processes, victims can make statements, receive information, provide evidence, formulate allegations and, in short, assert their interests"174 that "they can formulate their claims and present evidentiary elements and that they are analyzed in a complete and serious manner by the authorities before a decision is made on the facts, responsibilities, penalties, and reparations”175. 158. In another issue, on second instance, the Commission verifies that, according to the documents submitted, on Saturday, September 17, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of the I/A Court H. R., Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 347, para. 140. 172 173 Fact affirmed by the State in its brief of observations submitted to the Commission on December 13, 2016. C I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 247; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 251; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 193; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 376; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 230; I/A Court H. R., Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 238. 174 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 120; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations 175 33