53 147. The States Parties in the American Convention have an obligation to comply with the rules of the due process of law (Article 8(1)), within the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).108 148. All organs that exercise functions of a substantially jurisdictional nature have the obligation to adopt just decisions based on full respect for the guarantee of due process established in Article 8 of the Convention.109 * * * 149. Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention orders that the competent judicial authorities notify the accused of the charges presented against him, their reasons, and the crimes or offenses he is charged with.110 In order for this right to satisfy its inherent purposes, it is necessary that this notification be given before the accused offers his first statement.111 This guarantee is essential for the effective exercise of the right to a defense. It is precise to especially consider the application of this guarantee when measures that restrict the right to personal liberty are adopted, as in this case. 150. In the present case, it was proven that Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez offered his preliminary examination statement on April 29, 1997, without the assistance of legal counsel (supra para. 54(17)). The evidence offered proves that on that same day the alleged victim appointed his legal counsel, whose accreditation before the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela was presented on April 30, 1997 and this Court admitted the writ on May 2, 1997 (supra para. 54(18)). On the mentioned April 30, 1997 the Office of the Public Prosecutor presented before the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela an accusation for the possession, sale, and trafficking of cocaine against Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez and others (supra para. 54(19)). Therefore, Mr. López Álvarez gave his preliminary examination statement without a previous and detailed knowledge of the accusation against him. * * * 151. Article 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, in force in 1998, established that “[…] once he has given his preliminary examination statement, the accused person may appoint his defense counsel and he will be allowed to request the corresponding copy.” At the same time, Article 253 of the same Code stated that “[i]n 108 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 163; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 15, para. 195, and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 99, para. 142. 109 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 164; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 149; Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 104. 110 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 225; Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 118, and Case of Tibi, supra note 80, para. 187. 111 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 15, para. 225; Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 118, and Case of Tibi, supra note 80, para. 187.