present to safeguard the defendant's right to a defense.97 Similarly, the necessary elements must be present so that there is the greatest balance between the parties, for the due defense of their interests and rights, which implies, among other things, that the adversary principle governs.98 111. The right to defense is seen in two facets within the criminal process: on the one hand, through the accused's own acts, its central exponent being the ability to give a free statement on the events attributed to him and, on the other, through technical defense, exercised by a legal professional, who fulfills the function of advising the person under investigation on their duties and rights and executes, inter alia, a critical control and legality in the production of evidence.99 B.1.2. Scope of articles 8(2) and 8(2)(g) 112. The Court finds that from the examination of the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives related to the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, they are related to the lack of minimum guarantees, as well as the absence of defense, therefore, they must be analyzed under the assumptions of article 8(2) of the Convention. It should be noted that Mr. Valenzuela's criminal proceedings culminated in the sentence of the death penalty imposed under the application of Article 132 of the Criminal Code, regarding the element of "dangerousness of the agent", of which the Court will carry out the respective analysis within the chapter on Articles 4 and 9 of the American Convention in this judgment. 113. The Court’s case law has been emphatic in pointing out the importance of the principle of presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 8(2) of the Convention, as it constitutes a foundation for judicial guarantees to a fair trial. The presumption of innocence implies that the accused does not have to prove that he has not committed the crime attributed to him, since the onus probandi corresponds to the accusing party.100 114. In addition, this Court has indicated that a guarantee for the material exercise of the right of defense is the prohibition of a person being forced to testify against themself (Article 8(2)(g)). This article implies the right of active participation of the accused in the evidence, the right not to testify against themself and more specifically, the right to remain silent. In this sense, using torture to obtain a confession from the accused would be completely contrary to the conditions established by this right. In this regard, the Court has indicated that, “[t]he exclusion of evidence obtained through coercion is absolute and non-derogable.” Therefore, any confession obtained through torture is absolutely invalid and cannot be used as evidence in a conviction.101 Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 174, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 174. 98 Cf. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 132, and Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 152. 99 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C. 205, para. 61, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 18. 100 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 154, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 331, para. 138. 101 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 165, and Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319, para. 176. 97 30