14 61. The charges may be confronted and disproved by the accused by his own acts, including the statement he renders about the facts he is charged with, and by the legal representation exercised by a law professional, who advises the accused on his rights and duties and who also exercises, inter alia, a critical control over lawfulness in the production of evidence. 62. If the right to defense arises as of the moment in which an investigation into an individual is ordered (supra para. 29), the accused must have access to a legal representation from that moment onwards, especially during the procedure in which his statement is rendered. To prevent the accused from being advised by a counsel means to strictly limit the right to defense, which leads to a procedural unbalance and leaves the individual unprotected before the punishing authority. 63. The right to a legal representation cannot be satisfied by who, at the end, will file charges, that is, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, The charges reassert the criminal cause of action; the defense, responds and rejects. It is not reasonable to entrust naturally opposed forces with one person. 64. As a result, Mr. Barreto Leiva was entitled, according to the American Convention, to be assisted by a counsel and not by the Office of the Public Prosecutor when he provided the two informative statements indicated in paragraphs 35 and 40 supra. By depriving him of such legal counseling, the State violated Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to his detriment. 5. right to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons (Article 8(2)(f)) 65. The Commission and the representatives did not present arguments to sustain the violation of this right. They limited to point out that the violation of such right was the consequence of the secrecy of the investigation process, without referring to witnesses or expert witnesses that the victim could examine or people who were denied to appear. 66. Based on the lack of accuracy in relation to this aspect and considering that the secrecy of the investigation process was analyzed in the above paragraphs, the Tribunal declares that the violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention by the State has not been proven. 6. right to be tried by a competent tribunal (Article 8(1)) 67. The Commission indicated that Mr. Barreto Leiva “was involved in a case in which the President of the Republic and Deputies of the Republic were also named as perpetrators of the crime. The connection of cases in the first case was established by law, that is, there was a combined case with a Deputy of the Republic, which implied a trial in the [CSPA]. But, [the Venezuelan legal system] had no provisions applicable in the event that a person not covered by a special privilege was a party in a criminal case against the President of the Republic who, under the provisions of the Constitution and of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice, should be tried in sole instance by the high court Notwithstanding the absence of laws regulating connection in cases such as this one, the Supreme Court of Justice tried Mr. Barreto Leiva in sole instance, using jurisprudence to apply the aforementioned principle of connection”.