communicated freely; he was informed about his right to defend himself or, if he did not have the necessary resources, or a particular attorney to defend him, about the right to have a Federal Public defender appointed for him; he ha[d] the right to question witnesses the present in Court and he was given help to arrange for the appearance of all those persons that could shed light on the facts, so much so, that his defender also took advantage of this benefit to question the witnesses who testified against him, the defenders who assisted him in the prosecution and preparation thereof, and the attesting witnesses who were present in the first statements; he was also informed about the right not to incriminate himself or to plead guilty; likewise, he was duly informed of his right to appeal the judgments before a Superior Court.” 253 160. Based on the foregoing, the First Single-Magistrate Court considered that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel received the necessary defense, since “the fact that they mentioned that they do not recognize their court-appointed defense counsels […], does not undermine the evidentiary value of the proceedings in which they intervened, given that they were definite in mentioning that they had indeed counseled them and ensured that their individual guarantees were not violated.” 254 The domestic courts that heard the case 255 responded to the charges of irregularities by the court-appointed defense counsels in a similar manner to the aforementioned Single-Magistrate Court. 161. At the same time, the domestic case file reveals that, in the statement rendered by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel at the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 7, 1999, a court-appointed defense counsel as well as a private attorney intervened. On May 12, 1999 a formal detention order was issued against the victims and on the following day, they appealed that court order and appointed a defense counsel to represent them at this procedural stage (supra para. 69). On June 29, 1999, the First Single-Magistrate Court ruled on the motion of appeal and partially confirmed the arrest order against Mr. Montiel Flores, 256 since it revoked the charges brought against him related to possession of narcotics due to lack of evidence. As to Mr. Cabrera, the Court upheld the formal order for his detention. Based on the foregoing, this Court notes that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel did indeed have a defense counsel who appealed the court’s decision and that said appeal brought some positive results for the interests of the victims. 162. Bearing in mind the foregoing points, the Court considers that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the actions taken by the court-appointed defense counsels in the proceedings of May 4, 6 and 7, 1999 constituted per se a violation of the right to defense. 253 The court also stated that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “received appropriate legal counseling when they rendered their preliminary statements [through] Mr. Juan Carlos Palacios Sebastian Federal Public Defender and Liberio Melquiades Jardón[,] private attorney, who were appointed by [them].” It was also established that although said defenders “did not inform them about the right to render or not a statement, this event does not discredit the proceeding”, nor does the fact that “they remained in contact with the accused for a brief period, [that] they do not coincide with the objects placed before them, which as has been said did not occur, and that they indicated they do not remember what they said.” Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 148, pages 15301 to 15302 and 15238 to 15239. 254 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 148, pages 15227 to 15228. 255 Cf. Judgment of August 28, 2000 issued by the Fifth District Court, supra note 75, pages 11137 to 11293; Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 77, page 11322, volume XXVII, page 12205 and Judgment of July 16, 2001, issued by the First SingleMagistrate Tribunal, supra note 82, volume XXVIII, page 13022 to volume XXIX, 13735. The Court notes that in the statements of May 6, 1999 the court-appointed defense counsel asked questions for the defense of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and that, based on the interrogation, they mentioned for the first time the mistreatment against them. Cf. Statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, volume XXIII, pages 9777 to 9782 and 9783 to 9786. 256 Cf. Judgment issued on June 29, 1999 by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal of the TwentyFirst Circuit (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIII, pages 9961 to 10020). 64