Valenzuela Ávila. They also alleged that the police forces used torture to try to obtain a confession from the alleged victim. They also argued that the State is responsible for imposing the death penalty based on a norm contrary to the Convention and did not guarantee access to an effective remedy to challenge it, in accordance with the content of articles 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the American Convention. They added that the investigations carried out to clarify the facts related to his execution have suffered from omissions, irregularities and negligence that have hindered the process and delayed obtaining justice in this case. 107. The State argued that Mr. Valenzuela Ávila was subject to criminal proceedings in which his participation was proven and that the sentence issued did not result exclusively from his statement, for which it considered that it had not violated Article 8 of the American Convention. The State argued that in the criminal process all procedural guarantees were respected, in accordance with the principle of legality, in which the sentence was duly founded, consequently, it is not responsible for the violation of Articles 8(2)(g), (h), and 9 of Convention. In addition, it recognized its international responsibility for the lack of investigation of the acts of torture reported by Mr. Valenzuela Ávila. Finally, it is not possible to establish that the death of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila was derived from the participation of State agents, given that it is under investigation, therefore the State is not responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. B. Considerations of the Court 108. According to the allegations of the Commission and the representatives relating to the violation of right to a fair trial and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8 and 25(1) of the American Convention, the Court will analyze these in two sections: B.1 the criminal proceedings that resulted in the death sentence against Mr. Valenzuela Ávila, and B.2 the criminal proceedings in regard to the death of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila. B.1. Criminal proceedings that resulted in the death sentence against Mr. Valenzuela Ávila B.1.1. Minimum judicial guarantees 109. The Court has indicated that the right to due process refers to the set of requirements that must be observed in the procedural instances so that people are in a position to adequately defend their rights before any act of the State, adopted by any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, that may affect them.95 110. Under the terms of the Convention, due process translates centrally into the “judicial guarantees” of the right to a fair trial recognized in Article 8 of the American Convention. The aforementioned provision under the convention includes a system of guarantees that condition the exercise of the ius puniendi of the State and that seek to ensure that the accused or defendant is not subjected to arbitrary decisions, since "due guarantees" must be observed to ensure the right to due process, according to the corresponding procedure. 96 From the beginning of the first proceedings of a process, the maximum procedural guarantees must be Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (arts. 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 28, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 63. 96 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 148, and Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 383., para. 49. 95 29