person is accused of being the possible perpetrator or participant in a punishable act, and only culminates once the proceeding has concluded, including, as the case may be, the stage of enforcing the penalty.45 50. The Commission recalls that in the instant case, during the ratification process, the alleged victim was not given notice of the charges or accusation against her, nor was she informed of the allegations or complaints so as to have enabled her to submit evidence including exculpatory evidence with respect to such allegations or complaints. The IACHR recalls that the legal framework in force at the time did not provide for formulating charges or any accusation so as to enable the person to learn the reasons underpinning the decision not to ratify her, which made it impossible for her to defend herself or present evidence, for she did not know what the charges against her were, and those charges were the basis for her evaluation. As appears in the record, in the course of the proceeding a negative report was submitted regarding the alleged victim’s performance; nonetheless, she was not given notice of it, so as to be able to present arguments and evidence on her behalf with respect to that report. 51. Moreover, as regards the right to defense, the IACHR recalls that the alleged victim argued that she was given verbal notice of the decision not to ratify, an assertion that was not disputed by the State. The verbal notification negatively affected the right to defense on appeal because the alleged victim did not know the reasons that led the Commission of Judges to decide not to ratify her. In addition, as indicated in the record, neither in the consideration of the motion for review nor in the amparo motion did the competent authorities afford the alleged victim access to the record of ratifications, which may have set forth the detailed reasons and evidence presented against her that led to her not being ratified, so as to be able to controvert them with her arguments, or present exculpatory evidence. 52. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State violated the rights established in Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Norka Moya Solís. C. The right to have duly reasoned decisions46 and the principle of legality47 53. The principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the Convention applies to the action of State organs when exercising the State’s punitive power.48 That principle is applicable to disciplinary proceedings insofar as they are “an expression of the State’s punitive power” since they entail an impairment or alteration of the rights of persons as a result of some wrongful conduct.49 54. The Commission has indicated that respecting the principle of legality allows persons to effectively determine their conduct based on the law.50 As the IACHR has stated: “The principle of legality has a specific role in the definition of crimes; on the one hand, it guarantees individual liberty and safety by pre-establishing the behavior that is penalized clearly and unambiguously and, on the other hand, it protects legal certainty.”51 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. 46 Article 8(1) of the American Convention provides that 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. 47 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. Nor may a heavier penalty 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. 48 IACHR, Criminalization of the Work of Human Rights Defenders, OEA/Ser.L/V/Doc.49/15, December 31, 2015, para. 253. 49 I/A Court HR, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 257; and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 89. I/A Court HR. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 106 and 108. 50 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, para. 225, and Executive Summary, para. 17. 51 IACHR, Application and arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru; referred to in: I/A Court HR, Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, Judgment of November 18, 2004 (Merits, Reparations and Costs), Series C. No. 115, para. 74. 45