2 criminality. These inadmissible arguments give rise once again to the false dilemma between respect for human rights, on the one hand, and public safety or national security, on the other hand. This dangerous and unacceptable dilemma is, today, a reference point for the most relevant political, ethical and legal debate, and the effective preservation of the democratic system depends largely on its results. 6. Obviously, the State must ensure public safety and national security, since this protection is one of the State’s fundamental obligations. However, it is no less obvious that this obligation should be fulfilled without violating either the rule of law or scrupulous respect for human rights, which are also fundamental obligations of the public authorities; because, as has been affirmed since the historic declarations on rights of the eighteenth century – which are the source of the contemporary concept of human rights, and the origin and foundations of the modern state – the protection of human rights is the purpose of government. The energetic fight against crimes that harm society and endanger its very subsistence and its highest values should not be waged in violation of the rule of law, the democratic system, and the essential rights of the people. 7. Some of the facts set out in the instant case and the concepts of violation examined in this regard, have been re-examined by the Court in the context of other violations declared in the judgment. The existence of the facts is not denied, but it was considered more appropriate to examine them as violations of different Articles to those invoked in the application. This is especially true of the presentation to the public of audiovisual recordings made by the victim, which were widely broadcast in the media, and the interference in specific aspects of her private life. Both facts have been acknowledged in the judgment as violating human rights, although they have been given a different classification to the one set forth in the application. 8. I believe that the treatment of these statements made by the victim is especially relevant; they were obtained under intense pressure and transmitted to the public by television. In these declarations, among other matters, Maritza Urrutia acknowledged facts that harmed her and stated points of view that did not correspond to those she really held. The Inter-American Court understands that this entails a violation of various paragraphs and subparagraphs of Article 8 of the American Convention, since the accused has the right “not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty (Article 8(2)(g)) and “a confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind” (Article 8(3)). 9. Article 8, entitled “Judicial Guarantees” [in Spanish – “Right to a Fair Trial” in English] includes a series of rights that correspond, substantially, to “due process of law.” Here, as in Article 25 on “Judicial Protection,” access to justice is guaranteed, and conditions are established so that this access is not reduced to its formal dimension (the possibility of presenting a petition, evidence and arguments before a competent, independent and impartial court), but also extends to its material dimension (the possibility of obtaining a fair judgment). In this respect, the provisions of both Articles are a valuable instrument for the protection and defense of the individual in the face of acts or omissions of the State that violate or attempt to violate any of the rights embodied in the American Convention. 10. In other cases, the Court has made considerable progress in the understanding of the judicial guarantees established in Article 8, considering that the rules of due process of law apply also to proceedings before authorities that are explicitly administrative. All the guarantees included in Article 8 are relevant in any