Newspaper, the State claimed that the decree was approved before the Constitution of 1993; (ii) regarding the grounds for the order of the Investigative Council that recommended retiring the alleged victim, Peru claimed that the Council based its recommendation on nine considerations of fact, which did not include reference to the existence of criminal accusations in the military and ordinary jurisdictions. Although the recommendation of the Council mentions that he was accused before the Permanent War Council of the Fifth Judicial Military Area, this was as part of a description of the alleged victim’s situation and not a recognition, per se, of his criminal liability. Thus, it claims that it did not violate the presumption of innocence; (iii) regarding the alleged lack of adequate grounds of the order that decided to retire the alleged victim, the State claimed that the decision of the Army General Command referred to the minutes of the session of the Investigative Council of February 7, 1995, so it would not be possible to argue a lack of grounds, and (iv) regarding the alleged violation of the right to freedom from ex post facto laws, the State claimed that the Commission did not argue which specific facts violated the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws. A.2. Considerations of the Court A.2.1. Right to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing or provided by the State (Articles 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention) 142. Subparagraphs d) and e) of Article 8(2) express, within the list of minimum guarantees, “the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing” and, if he does not do so, “the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the State, paid or not as the domestic law provides.” The Court considers that this guarantee was applicable to the military disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, since it was in those proceedings that he was detained. 143. The Court emphasizes that the defense counsel provided by the State must be effective; therefore, it must adopt all the appropriate measures.117 This Court has noted previously that the accused must have access to legal counsel during the procedure in which he gives his first statement. To prevent the accused from receiving assistance by a defense counsel severely limits the right to defend himself, which leads to a procedural imbalance and leaves the individual unprotected before the punishing authority.118 144. In the instant case, Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio gave his first statement before the Inspectorate on September 5, 1994,119 the same day that he was detained, without having been notified of the charges against him (supra para. 46). It cannot be inferred from the transcript of the statement whether Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio had legal counsel at that time. 145. Therefore, Peru violated the right of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing or provided by the State since his first statement, established in Articles 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. A.2.2. Right to a hearing, duty to provide grounds and right to defend oneself (Articles 8(1) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention) 146. The Court has developed that the right to a hearing enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention shall be understood as that every person has the right to have access to a court or Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 159, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 83. 118 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009, para. 62; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, para. 155. 119 Cf. Statement of Lt. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio before the Investigation Officer, September 5, 1994 (evidence file, folios 3940-3948). 117 33