victim “was notified of the reason for her detention and Manuela received a clear and precise explanation of the facts for which she was being prosecuted;” (iii) the presumed victim was appointed a public defender on February 28, 2008; (iv) Manuela’s defense was “reasonable” and “Manuela was not present at the initial hearing because she had not been transferred to the court by the Section for the Transfer of Defendants of the Eastern Zone of San Miguel, due to lack of personnel”; (v) at the preliminary investigation stage, “all the evidentiary procedures were conducted in the presence of the public defender”; (vi) during the special hearing to review measures, the defense counsel asked for “the review of the extreme measure of pretrial detention and its substitution by any other measure”; (vii) Manuela’s failure to make a statement during the trial is explained by the fact that “this formed part of the defense’s strategy in favor of Manuela,” and (viii) at the time the criminal trial was held “there was no remedy that allowed a comprehensive review of a guilty verdict in a criminal trial,” but “the assertion that the defender did not inform Manuela that remedies existed was not proved during the criminal proceedings.” The State also indicated that the judicial decisions were duly reasoned. Lastly, it stressed that, “when delivering the judgment on the merits of this case, the evidence provided to the court was assessed completely and comprehensively, without filling in factual gaps with stereotypes, because circumstances were proved that led the court to determine with positive certainty the existence of the crime and the criminal participation.” B. Considerations of the Court 118. The Court has indicated that the right to due process refers to the series of requirements that must be met in the procedural instances to ensure that individuals are able to adequately defend their rights vis-à-vis any act of the State adopted by any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, that could impair them.213 The right to defense, especially in criminal proceedings, is a central component of due process and, necessarily, it must be possible to exercise this from the moment a person is accused of being the possible perpetrator of, or participant in, an unlawful act, and only ends when the proceedings are concluded, including, if applicable, the stage of execution of the sentence. 214 119. In this case, a series of violations of judicial guarantees has been alleged. The Court only has sufficient evidence to examine: (1) the right to defense; (2) the use of gender stereotypes and judicial guarantees, and (3) the sentence imposed on Manuela. B.1 The right to defense 120. The right to defense obliges the State to treat the individual, at all times, as a true subject of the proceedings, in the broadest sense of this concept, and not merely as an object of the proceedings.215 The right to defense has two aspects during criminal proceedings; on the one hand, the right to a substantive defense through the actions taken by the defendant, and its principal feature is the possibility of playing an active role in the hearings and procedures and providing a freely-given statement regarding the acts with which he has been charged and, on the other hand, through a professional defense by a legal practitioner, who acts as an adviser to the defendant concerning his rights and obligations, and ensures, inter Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 88. 213 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 29, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 100. 214 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 29, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 385, para. 151. 215 37