210. Notwithstanding, the analysis as to whether or not the State has breached the principle of the presumption of innocence, may call for a review of how the court in question managed and assessed the evidence in the framework of the guarantees of due process of law. This is a separate task from that of criminal judges and focuses exclusively on assessing whether in performance of their duties, they upheld or failed to uphold the minimum safeguards that are imposed by the principle of the presumption of innocence. 211. The Commission considers that in conducting this analysis, which is an essential corollary of the principle of the presumption of innocence, judicial authorities have made a record of the evidence deemed by them to be sufficient to undermine said presumption. Likewise, when there is favorable evidence, the analysis of the presumption of innocence requires that it be ascertained that the judicial authorities provided a legal and factual basis for the reasons why said favorable evidence does not cast a doubt on the criminal responsibility of the person in question. 212. In this vein, the Court has held that pursuant to Article 8.1 of the Convention, the State must “exteriorize” [explicitly state] the “the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.”189 Said duty “protects the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons provided by Law,” 190 and affords “credibility to the legal decisions adopted in the framework of a democratic society.”191 213. The Commission has established above in the instant report that the authorities conducting the investigation and the criminal proceedings attached full validity to the pre-indictment statements, ignoring the complaints of coercion and the medical certificates of the injuries. In addition to infringing the exclusionary rule, as established hereinbefore, the Commission finds that this conduct is at odds with the principle of the presumption of innocence. The Commission provides hereunder a synopsis of the different points in time when it is clear that domestic authorities gave precedence to unfavorable information elicited in the pre-indictment statements, over information indicating that such information was given under duress and that, consequently, the truthfulness thereof was questionable. These can be summed up as follows: a. From the opening of the case, when the “order to institute trial proceedings” was issued, on August 17, 1994, even though the medical examination reports of August 9, 1994 had been issued before that time, they were not taken into consideration or weighed in issuing this decision. b. When the order to “open the full trial proceedings” on June 14, 1996, was issued, the Thirteenth Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha also failed to take into consideration the statements before the judge and the medical examination reports of August 9, and opened the full trial stage based on the existence of drugs and the pre-indictment statements of the detainees. c. In ruling on the motion of appeal brought against the above order, the Fourth Chamber for Criminal Matters of the Court dismissed the content of Mr. Revelles’ initial statement before a judge noting that through the statement “[…] he attempted to circumvent his involvement in and responsibility for the criminal offense that is the subject of the instant proceedings.” These allegations were not examined in light of the medical examination reports and only his pre-indictment statement was validated without further basis than having been given before a representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor. 189 IA Court of HR, Case of Apitz Barbera et al (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 77. Citing. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107. 190 IA Court of HR, Case of Apitz Barbera et al (“First Court for Administrative Matters”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 77. 191 IA Court of HR, Case of Apitz Barbera et al (“First Court for Administrative Matters”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 77. 49