IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Right to a fair trial15 and freedom from ex post facto law16 1. General considerations regarding applicable guarantees in punitive and factfinding proceedings 38. The Commission recalls that both bodies of the Inter-American system have held that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention are not confined to criminal proceedings, but also apply to proceedings of another nature.17 Specifically, when punitive proceedings are involved, both bodies of the system have asserted that the guarantees set forth in Article 8.2 of the American Convention, by analogy, are applicable.18 In proceedings where issues of rights or interests are settled, the “due guarantees” established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, including the right to sufficient justification, are applicable.19 Likewise, the European Court has provided that due process protections must be respected and ensured in the context of administrative proceedings, which include dismissals of a public servant.20 39. Pursuant to the foregoing, the determination of which due guarantees apply in a specific proceeding for the determination of rights must be based on the nature of the proceeding and the legal interests at stake.21 2. General considerations on guarantees applicable to justice operators including prosecutors 2.1 The principle of judicial independence and removal of justice operators Article 8.1 of the Convention reads: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. Article 8.2 establishes, in the relevant portions that: 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: b) prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; c) adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense. 16 Article 9 of the American Convention establishes that no one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom. 17 IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12.600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al “Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, par. 102; IA Court of HR. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, pars. 126-127; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, pars. 69-70; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, par. 111. 18 IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12.600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al “Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, par. 102; IA Court of HR. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, pars. 126-127; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, pars. 69-70; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, par. 111 19 IA Court of HR. Case of Barbani Duarte et al v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, par. 118; and Case of Claude Reyes et al v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, par. 118. 15 ECHR, Cudak v. Luthania. Application No. 15869/025. Judgment of March 23, 2010, para.42. IA Court of HR. Case of Barbani Duarte et al v. Uruguay. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, pars. 118-119. 20 21 7