Convention, that could have arisen in the criminal trial against Mr. Cortez in military courts. 86 This Court will therefore analyze the allegations regarding violations of the rights to judicial guarantees with respect to the civilian criminal trial. Criminal proceedings in regular criminal courts 94. With respect to the criminal trial against Mr. Cortez in the regular courts, the Commission and the representatives have argued that the following rights were violated: (a) the right to defense assistance, pursuant to Article 8(2), paragraph (d), of the Convention, due to the absence of a defense attorney “immediately” upon his detention, and (b) the right to a trial within a reasonable time. The Court will focus its analysis on these elements because other arguments made by the representatives concern the right to personal liberty, which will be analyzed later (infra chapter VIII.2). 95. The guarantees established in Article 8 of the Convention refer to procedural requirements that must be observed, and they include the broad ability of individuals involved in a trial to be heard and to act, such that they are able to bring their petitions and present evidence, and for the evidence to be analyzed thoroughly and earnestly by the authorities prior to any rulings on the facts, responsibility, sentences, or reparations—in general, on the determination of rights and obligations. 87 A person must be able to exercise their right to defense from the moment when they are identified as a possible perpetrator or participant in a punishable offense. 88 Hindering defense assistance at key procedural occasions, for example when taking the defendant’s statement, is to seriously limit that defendant’s right to defense, which gives rise to procedural inequality and leaves the individual without protection against the State’s punitive power. 89 The person providing defense assistance may be chosen by the defendant or, if the defendant does not choose one, provided by the State. 90 96. Moreover, Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that the procedures must be followed within a reasonable timeframe. The Court has established that four elements must be taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of the duration: (a) the complexity of the issue, (b) the procedural actions of the party, (c) the conduct of the legal authorities, and (d) the effects of the legal situation on the person involved in the trial. 91 97. With respect to the alleged lack of immediate defense assistance at the time of Mr. Cortez’s detention, the Court notes that the facts presented to the Court, which have been 86 Thus, the Court will not examine the arguments specific to the military criminal trial related to Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), and 8(2)(d) of the Convention. That includes arguments concerning the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2) of the Convention) in connection with the pretrial detention of Mr. Cortez in 1997; those will not be discussed or considered. 87 Cf. Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27 and 28; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69; andCase of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 118; and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 59. 88 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 29; and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 118. 89 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paras. 193, 194, and 196; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 62; and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 121. 90 Exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Art. 46(1), 46(2)(a), and 46(2)(b), American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 25; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 191–194. 91 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155; and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 107. 22