but “the identity of the persons responsible has not been determined 93 (capitals in the original text). The circumstances of the death of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila are still being investigated at the domestic level. VIII MERITS 104. This case deals with the alleged international responsibility of the State for the imposition of the death penalty based on a criminal category that provided for dangerousness as a typical element, as well as for the alleged torture, acts of violence and violations of due process committed in the context of the criminal proceedings against Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. Said process culminated in the death sentence for Mr. Valenzuela. In addition, regarding the alleged extrajudicial execution of Mr. Valenzuela after his last escape from the “El Infiernito” prison, the possible international responsibility of the State for the violations of the right to life and judicial guarantees due to the lack of investigation, prosecution, where appropriate, the punishment of those possibly responsible, since the investigation is still ongoing. This Court then proceeds to consider and resolve the merits of the dispute. To do this, it will analyze: (1) the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection; (2) the imposition of the death sentence on Mr. Valenzuela Ávila; (3) the death of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila; (4) the alleged torture, sexual abuse and mistreatment suffered by Mr. Valenzuela Ávila, during his detention and while he was detained, as well as the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment suffered for having been subjected to “death row”, and (5) the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty. VIII-1 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION94 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 105. The Commission concluded that within the criminal proceedings against Mr. Valenzuela culminating in a death sentence, the principle of presumption of innocence was violated and due process guarantees were not observed for instances where Article 132 of the Penal Code was applied according to the element of social dangerousness. Additionally, it argued that his statement was obtained through physical and psychological torture, insofar as the right not to be forced to testify against himself and not to be coerced to confess was violated, for which it was concluded that the State violated articles 8(2)(g) and 8(3) of the Convention. Similarly, it argued that it was not possible for Mr. Valenzuela to appeal the conviction, since, in accordance with the standards of the Convention, he did not have an effective remedy, neither appeal nor cassation, to challenge the death sentence, therefore constituting a violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. Finally, it argued that the State did not initiate an investigation into the acts of torture, which violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. 106. The representatives reiterated the Commission's allegations and indicated that the State is internationally responsible for the violation of the rights to a fair trial and effective judicial protection contained in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(c), (d), (e), (g) and (h), and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Official Letter of the Special Prosecutor against Impunity of December 12, 2018 (file of annexes to the Answering brief, annex 5, fs. 13050 to 13052). 94 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 93 28