of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to their detriment. X RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, AND OF THE CHILD, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS, AS WELL AS THE OBLIGATIONS ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLES 1, 6, AND 8 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE 212. In this Chapter, the Court will analyze the presumed violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection of the next of kin of Ricardo David Videla owing to the supposed failure to investigate the causes of his death. Then, the Court will refer to the supposed lack of an investigation into the torture inflicted on Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez. Subsequently, the Court will refer to the allegations concerning the supposed violations of the right to appeal the sentence and the right of defense. A. Investigation into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández A.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 213. The Commission argued that the purpose of the criminal investigation opened as a result of the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández was to determine whether he had committed suicide and whether the prison authorities had responded appropriately on the day of his death as soon as they were informed of the incident, but that “it did not include determination of possible responsibilities for the omissions […] in view of the inhuman detention conditions of the [presumed] victim and the known deterioration of his health.” Moreover, according to the Commission, “no steps were taken to verify the prison authorities’ failure to act in response to the victim’s specific statement that he would end his life.” The Commission considered that “these were logical lines of investigation” that should have been followed in order to clarify all those possibly responsible for the death. Regarding the disciplinary investigation opened as a result of the death of Ricardo David Videla, the Commission “observe[d] that the foregoing considerations are equally applicable to [this investigation], which was ultimately archived because no official was charged in the criminal proceedings.” Based on all the foregoing, the Commission concluded that the State had violated “the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument,” to the detriment of the next of kin of Ricardo David Videla Fernandez. 214. The representative agreed with the Commission that the investigation into the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernandez was incomplete, because “its purpose was limited to establishing the causes of death, leaving to one side the potential responsibility of the prison staff or of the doctors who intervened for possible omissions in the performance of their duties […],” and because “all the evidence that could have been required in a case with these characteristics was not collected.” The representative also indicated that “the failure to investigate the death of David [Videla] continues,” because, following the issue of the Inter-American Commission’s Report No. 172/10, a complaint was filed requesting the reopening of the investigation, but “this request was not granted.” Lastly, the representative indicated that “the investigation was not conducted with due diligence,” because “between August 2005 and March 2006 no probative actions were taken […].” Consequently, she asked that the State be declared “responsible for the violation of the rights protected by Articles 1(1), […] 8(1), 19 and 25 of the American Convention,” inter alia, to the detriment of Ricardo David Videla Fernández and his next of kin. 70