23 90. This Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment established in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo. VIII-3 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES83 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 91. The Commission argued that Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza did not have defense counsel at least during the following procedures: (a) when providing their preliminary statements on April 19, 1993; (b) during the “confrontation” procedure between the defendants before the Second Trial Judge on May 5, 1993, and (c) on April 22, 1993, in the procedure at which their pre-trial detention was ordered. In addition, during the criminal proceedings against them for the crime of aggravated rape, law students were appointed to be their public defenders and, therefore, the State failed to guarantee a suitable professional defense during those proceedings. The Commission added that none of the numerous legal remedies filed conducted a control of the proceedings in relation to the violations of due process and as a result Messrs. Girón and Castillo were left in a situation of defenselessness.84 Consequently, it concluded that the State had violated Article 8(2)(c) and 8(2)(e), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, of the American Convention, to the detriment of the two alleged victims. 92. The representatives reiterated the Commission’s arguments and indicated that, the alleged victims had not had a professional defense during several procedures and, in others, the alleged lack of experience of the law students who represented them could be noted. Consequently, they argued that the State had violated: (a) Article 8(2)(d) at the time of their preliminary statement after they had been charged with the crime of aggravated rape, because Messrs. Girón and Castillo were not assisted by a lawyer at that time or during other procedural stages; (b) in relation to the previous paragraph, Article 8(2)(e), which establishes the minimum guarantee of being assisted by counsel provided by the State, because they were represented by law students rather than by a lawyer; (c) Article 8(2)(g), in relation to Article 8(3) of the Convention, because they were obliged to testify against themselves and were urged to tell the “truth”; in addition, Mr. Castillo was uneducated, and thus more easily influenced by the judge during his questioning, and neither his possible state of inebriation nor his not remembering anything about what happened was taken into consideration; (d) Article 8(2)(c), in relation to the time given to prepare the defense during the ordinary criminal proceedings, because the public defenders were not guaranteed adequate time and means to prepare their strategy and evidence; (e) Article 8(2)(f), because the defense counsel were unable to question the witnesses identified during the trial; (f) Articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1), because although the alleged victims “had access to the ordinary remedies of appeal that were available […] these were not effective,” and Article 8(5) because oral, public adversarial proceedings were not conducted, since procedural law in force at that time did not establish this procedure. Consequently, they asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, pursuant to Article 8 as indicated above and Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. 83 Article 8 of the American Convention. For example, it indicated that the court decided to receive the statements of three witnesses; however, this procedure could not be conducted because Roberto Girón’s defense counsel failed to comply with the legal formality to submit the list of question he would ask the witnesses to the judge. 84