and mutatis mutandis, those related to a criminal proceeding. In particular, the guarantees established at Articles 8(1), 8(2), and 9 of the American Convention are relevant for the analysis. B. The right to prior and detailed information regarding the accusation 35 and the right to have adequate time and means to prepare the defense36 46. As regards the guarantee of prior and detailed knowledge of the accusation, the Commission recalls that Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention “orders competent judicial authorities to notify the accused of the charges against him, the reasons for them and for what crimes or violations he is being held responsible.”37 47. In this respect, in the case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, the Inter-American Court indicated: “To comply with Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention, the State must notify the accused not only of the charges against him, that is, the crimes or offenses he is charged with, but also of the reasons for them, and the evidence for such charges and the legal definition of the facts. The defendant has the right to know, through a clear, detailed and precise description, all the information of the facts in order to fully exercise his right to defense and prove to the judge his version of the facts. The Court has considered that timely compliance with Article 8(2)(b) is essential for the effective exercise of the right to defense.” 38 In the same case the Inter-American Court indicated: “The person being investigated, before rendering a statement, has to officially learn about the facts he is charged with, not just infer them from the public information or the questions that are made to him. In this way, his response may be effective and without the margin of error that the guesswork produces.”39 In addition, this right applies even before an “accusation” is lodged, strictly speaking. In order for article to attain the purposes inherent to it, notice must occur prior to the accused giving his or her first public statement to any public authority.40 48. The guarantee of adequate means to mount a defense, contained in Article 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, implies that the accused has access the record in the matter, and to the proceedings records related to the charges and the detention41, while also respecting the principle of adversarial procedure that ensures the involvement of the accused in analyzing the evidence.42 In a similar vein, the Commission has indicated that pursuant to Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention, the State should ensure that the persons can “prepare their defense, formulate their claims and submit evidence.”43 49. The Commission also recalls that the right to defense implies that the person subjected to a proceeding, including an administrative one, is able to defend his or her interests or rights effectively and in “conditions of procedural equality … being fully informed of the charges against him or her,” 44 so that, in the face of the punitive power of the State, the person accused is able to put forth evidence tending to refute the accusation with all the information necessary. The right to defense should necessarily be exercised from the moment a Article 8(2)(b) refers to prior and detailed communication to the accused of the accusation that has been made. Article 8(2)(c) refers to giving the accused adequate time and means to prepare his or her defense. 37 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Application before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Oscar Barreto Leiva, Case 11,663, against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, para. 78; I/A Court HR, Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 149; I/A Court HR, Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 225; I/A Court HR, Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 118; and I/A Court HR, Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 187. 38 I/A Court HR. Case of Barreto Leiva, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C no. 206, para. 28. 39 I/A Court HR. Case of Barreto Leiva, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C no. 206, para. 47. 40I/A Court HR. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009, Series C No. 206, para. 29. 41 I/A Court HR. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para.32. 42 See I/A Court HR. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009, Series C No. 206, para. 29; I/A Court HR. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 83. 43 IACHR. Report No. 136/11. Case 12,474. Pacheco Tineo Family. Bolivia. October 31, 2011, para. 118 citing IACHR. Report No. 49/99. Case 11,610. Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz. Mexico. April 13, 1999, para. 60; IACHR. Report No. 84/09. Case 12,525. Nelson Iván Serrano Sáenz. Publication. Ecuador. August 6, 2009, paras. 61 and 62. 44 I/A Court HR. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 117. 35 36