156. Furthermore, this Court considers that one of the guarantees inherent in the right to defense is to have sufficient time and adequate means to prepare the defense, which requires the State to allow the accused to have access to the case file and to the evidence gathered against him. 238 157. In this case, on May 4, 1999, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel rendered their statements at the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the presence of their courtappointed defense counsel and attesting witnesses. 239 Subsequently, on May 6, 1999, Messrs. Montiel and Cabrera rendered a second statement before the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the presence of a federal court-appointed defense counsel. 240 On May 12, 1999 the first instance court issued a formal order for the arrest of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, 241 which the victims appealed the following day. In that appeal, a new defense counsel was appointed by the court. 242 Later, on July 13, 1999 a private defense counsel accompanied them to render an amplification of their statement. 243 On August 20, 1999, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel appointed attorneys Digna Ochoa y Plácido, Maria del Pilar Noriega and Jose Cruz Lavanderos Yañez as private defense counsel. 244 From that moment, the Miguel Agustín Pro Juarez Human Rights Center (Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez) took on the defense of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and filed several motions and remedies. 158. The representatives reject the actions taken by the court-appointed defense counsels during the proceeding, considering that by failing to challenge certain evidentiary facts, these would have played an important role in their subsequent conviction. At the domestic level, the victims’ defense counsel argued that the statements of May 4 and 6, 1999 were not rendered before the Public Prosecutor’s Office but were signed at the military battalion and that the victims were always under the control of military personnel during those days. 245 The representatives further alleged that “at some point, certain local officials appeared 238 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C N° 135, para. 170; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra note 100, para. 54. 239 8199. Statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 4, 1999, supra note 142, pages 8198 to 240 Statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, pages 9777 to 9782 and 9783 to 9786. 241 Order of constitutional term issued on May 12, 1999 by the First Instance Court in Criminal Matters of the Judicial District of Mina (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIII; pages 9844 to 9874). 242 Record of the appeal “against the order for not agreeing with it.” Cf. Court order of constitutional term issued on May 12, 1999, supra note 241, page 9874. 243 Statement of the private defense counsel before the Fifth District Court of July 13, 1999 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIII, page 10035). 244 Brief signed by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel on August 20, 1999, asking the Fifth District Court “[t]o consider as […] the sole private attorneys [Digna Ochoa and Plácido, Maria del Pilar Noriega and Jose Cruz Lavanderos Yañez]” (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIV, page 10108 to 10109). 245 In this context, Mr. Montiel Flores stated that he saw the court-appointed defense counsel who advised them on May 6, 1999, “in the Examining Trial Court; that if she helped him, it was as an accomplice to the torture […] since there were only soldiers where he was detained, unless she was dressed as a military officer; that the only statements he admits are the ones rendered as an extension of his statement before the District Trial Court which he rendered voluntarily, without threats or torture.” Moreover, Mr. Cabrera García said he met the defense counsel “at the Fifth District Trial Court and that he was tortured in the […] Battalion [...], where he was stunned; they signed the documents without reading them (sic) … if she had been there, she would have asked [the soldiers] not to beat them; however, she did not do that since she was never there and he never saw her.” Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 148, page 15198. 62