85 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; 191. Principle seventeen of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment states that 1. A detained person shall be entitled to have the assistance of a legal counsel. He shall be informed of his right by the competent authority promptly after arrest and shall be provided with reasonable facilities for exercising it. 2. If a detained person does not have a legal counsel of his own choice, he shall be entitled to have a legal counsel assigned to him by a judicial or other authority in all cases where the interests of justice so require and without payment by him if he does not have sufficient means to pay.164 192. The Political Constitution of Ecuador established that “every person tried for a criminal offense will have the right to a defense counsel” (Article 19(17)(e)). 193. Despite the aforementioned constitutional provision, Daniel Tibi did not have access to an attorney during the first month of his detention. One day after said detention, on September 28, 1995, the alleged victim rendered his pre-trial statement before the Public Prosecutor, without the assistance of a defense counsel. 194. As was proven, in the court order to investigate the alleged crime, which opened the preliminary proceedings, issued on October 4, 1995, the Judge named a court-appointed defense counsel for Daniel Tibi and the other accused. This attorney did not visit the alleged victim and he did not intervene in his defense. While Mr. Tibi was subsequently able to communicate with a private attorney, he was not able to hire his services for lack of financial means. This situation entailed that during the first month of his detention he did not have the assistance of an attorney (supra para. 90(19)), and this did not allow him to have an adequate defense. 195. The Court notes, in turn, that Mr. Tibi, being a foreign detainee, was not informed of his right to communicate with a consular official of his country to seek the assistance recognized by Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (supra para. 90(17)). In this regard, the Court pointed out that the individual right of the national of a country to request consular assistance from his country “must be recognized and taken into account in the framework of minimal guarantees to provide foreigners with the opportunity to adequately prepare their defense and to have a fair trial.”165 Disregard for this right affected the right to defense, which is part of the guarantees of due legal process. 164 U.N., Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, supra note 126, Principle 17. 165 See The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, supra note 133, para. 122.