43 d) the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; e) the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law; f) the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; g) the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty; and h) the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 60. Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 61. In this case, the Court has been called to determine if the criminal process followed against Mr. Fermín Ramírez, which resulted in a conviction to the death penalty, observed the guarantees of the due process as required, specifically, by Article 8 of the Convention, and if said person had access to an effective recourse in the terms of Article 25 of the same, both in relation with Article 1(1) of that instrument. 62. It is important to reiterate in this case, in which the actions within the framework of a criminal process are being questioned, that the bodies of the InterAmerican System of Human Rights do not act as an instance of appeal or revision of judgments issued in internal procedures. Its role is to determine the compatibility of the actions carried out in said processes with the American Convention.84 This is what the Tribunal will limit to in the present Ruling. 63. The process followed against Mr. Fermín Ramírez originated in the violent death of a minor. When deciding other cases, the Court has pointed out that this is not a criminal court where the criminal responsibility of the individuals can be analyzed.85 The application of the criminal law to those who commit crimes corresponds to the national courts. This applies to the present case, which does not refer to the innocence or guilt of Mr. Fermín Ramírez with regard to the acts attributed to him, but instead to the conformity of the acts of his process with the American Convention. The Court mentions the duty the States have to protect everybody, avoiding crimes, punishing the parties responsible for them, and 84 Cfr. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 189; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222. 85 Cfr. Case of Castillo Petruzzi and others. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90; Case of the “Panel Blanca” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 71; and Case of Suárez Rosero. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37.