41 131. The State sustained that Mr. Vélez Loor “had access to legal counsel provided, free of charge, by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Panama [and,] also that he could have activated the mechanisms of cooperation between the Ombudsman’s Office of Ecuador and the Ombudsman’s Office of Panama, given that they exist and are valid.” Moreover, the State referred to "[the] legal access that people deprived of liberty had to free legal counsel provided by court appointed counsels in Panama.” Finally, it referred to the access to consular assistance that Mr. Vélez Loor had. 132. In this context, it is worth emphasizing the importance of legal aid in cases like the instant one, in which there is an alien who may not know the legal system of the country and who is in a particularly vulnerable situation given the deprivation of liberty, for which the recipient State must take into account the particular characteristics of the persons situation, in order for said person to have effective access to justice in equal terms.130 Hence, the Tribunal deems that the legal aid must be provided by a legal professional in order to satisfy the requirements of a procedural representation, by means of which the accused is advised, inter alia, about the possibility of filing remedies against acts that affect individual rights. If the right to defense arises as from the moment the investigation begins or the authority in charge orders or executes actions entailing an infringement of rights,131 the person subjected to a sanctioning administrative proceeding must have access to procedural representation from that moment onwards. To prevent the accused from being advised by a counsel means to strictly limit the right to defense, which leads to procedural imbalance and leaves the individual unprotected before the sanctioning authority.132 133. Without prejudice to the powers inherent to the Ombudsman of the Republic of Panama,133 the Court considers that the proceeding said institution may conduct, by virtue of a claim or complaint filed against an authority in charge of the public administration, is clearly different to the State obligation to provide adequate legal aid to whom cannot defend himself or herself or appoint a private counsel. Therefore, the realm or scope of its acts does not satisfy the guarantee of a counsel provided by the State who, in principle and for conventional purposes, must exercise legal assistance and representation from the first stages of the proceeding, given that, otherwise, the legal aid is not competent due to its lack of timeliness. Specially, the Court emphasizes that the legal aid provided by the State cannot be confused with the activity that, within the framework of its work, the Ombudsman carries out.134 In fact, they both may complement each other, but for conventional purposes they are clearly different. 130 See mutatis mutandis Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paras. 51 and 63; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 184, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al., supra note 27, para. 200. 131 See mutatis mutandis Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 101, para. 70; Case of Barreto Leiva, supra note 96, para. 29, and Case of Bayarri, supra note 27, para. 105. 132 Case of Barreto Leiva, supra note 96, para. 61 to 62. 133 The Ombudsman is an independent institution created by Law N° 7 of February 5, 1997, who acts with functional, administrative and financial full autonomy, without receiving instructions of any other authority, state body or person. Cf. Article 1 of Law N° 7 of February 5, 1997, by means of which the Ombudsman of the Republic of Panama was created (case file of the evidence, volume VII, annex 8 of the answer to the application, folio 2768). 134 In what is permanent, Article 5 of Law No. 7 of February 5, 1997, states: The individual protected by the Ombudsman's Office is legitimized procedurally to exercise popular actions and remedies under constitutional guarantees, as well as for contentious cases -full administrative jurisdiction and protection of human rights. The Defender or Ombudsman shall exercise these powers in cases that it considers appropriate in view of the objectives of the Ombudsman. Law No. 7 of February 5, 1997, supra note 133, folio 2772.