party. The opposing party has not evidenced that the participation of JRH as legal counsel caused any specific damages to his human rights or of having requested a different legal counsel. If he considered that he was not suitably represented he could have requested a change of legal counsel, but he did not do so or, at least, no evidence has been provided of his having done so. B.1.4 Considerations of the Court 173. Before analyzing the arguments of the parties, the Court noes that the Inter-American Commission claimed that Mr. JRH’s participation as legal counsel for both the alleged victim and his hierarchical superior affected Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’s rights in the disciplinary proceedings. However, said participation was part of the ordinary criminal proceedings149 and will thus be analyzed in this subsection. 174. In light of that indicated supra regarding the right to be assisted by legal counsel, the Court calls to mind that the appointment of a defense counsel is not sufficient to guarantee the right to defend oneself; rather, the effective exercise of that right requires providing the alleged victim with adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense.150 175. The Court has considered that the appointment of a defense counsel for the sole purpose of complying with a procedural formality would be tantamount to not having technical legal representation; therefore, it is imperative that the defense counsel act diligently in order to protect the procedural guarantees of the accused and thereby prevent his rights from being violated, thereby breaking the bond of trust. The Court has recognized that to accomplish this objective the State must adopt all appropriate measures to ensure access to qualified and trained attorneys who can act with functional autonomy.151 176. The Court has established that the right to defend oneself includes an effective and prompt defense conducted by qualified professionals, which safeguards the specific interests of the accused.152 Thus, any form of apparent defense would be a violation of the American Convention. Moreover, when the domestic body of law permits joint legal counsel for several codefendants, it is the State’s responsibility to identify, through the competent authorities, whether there are any incompatibilities and to adopt the measures necessary to effectively guarantee the right to defend oneself.153 177. The Court confirms that the statement given by the alleged victim on September 15, 1994, was done “[…] in the presence of […] Dr. JRH,” who subsequently signed the statement as “legal counsel” of Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio, in the investigation conducted by the National Anti-Drug Department of the National Police of Peru (PNP – DINANDRO). 154 The statement was subsequently used by the Commander of the National Police of Peru to file the accusation before the Second District Attorney of San Martín Tarapoto. 155 Furthermore, the statement by Colonel M dated September 22, 1994, indicates that the legal counsel, JRH, was present. Thus, Mr. JRH was appointed as legal counsel for both Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio and Colonel M, his hierarchical 153F 54 F Cf. Order of the Judge of Mixed First Instance of September 28, 1994 (evidence file, folio 199). Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, para. 170, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 83-84. 151 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007, para. 159, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019, para. 83. 152 Cf. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 157, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, para. 84. 153 Cf. Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 86 and 87. 154 Cf. Statement of Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio before DINANDRO, September 15, 1994 (evidence file, folio 25). 155 Cf. Complaint of the Commander of the National Police of Peru of September 23, 1994 (evidence file, folio 152). 149 150 40