64. According to available information, of the total alleged victims who were dismissed, 28 were later reinstated. 40 The petitioners argued that none of the six members of the Union’s Executive Committee were rehired. 41 The state did not dispute said information. IV. DETERMINATIONS OF LAW A. General considerations on the guarantees applicable to proceedings of administrative sanctions 65. The Commission recalls that both bodies of the inter-American system have indicated that the guarantees set forth in Article 8 of the American Convention are not confined to criminal proceedings, but are applicable to proceedings of another nature as well. 42 Specifically, when dealing with proceedings pertaining to sanctions, both bodies have indicated that the guarantees set forth in Article 8.2 of the American Convention are applicable by analogy. 43 Likewise, the principle of legality is applicable to disciplinary proceedings which are “an expression of the punitive powers of the State” because they entail impairment or alteration of human rights as a result of unlawful conduct. 44 66. In line with the above, to determine which of the guarantees the state had the obligation to grant in the concrete case, it is necessary to refer to the character of the process in question. The instant case focuses on the dismissal of 93 employees of the Judiciary of Guatemala because of a strike that took place in 1996. Taking into account the applicable laws, the contents of the domestic rulings issued regarding the case, and the purpose of the proceedings, the Commission deems that it involved a punitive procedure and, therefore, the applicable guarantees include, by analogy and mutatis mutandis, those relative to a criminal proceeding. B. Right to be heard and right of defense 45 67. The right to a hearing (Article 8.1 of the Convention) means every person’s right to have access to the court or state body in charge of determining his or her rights and obligations. 46 As for the right of defense, it includes the obligation of prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him or her (Article 8.2 (b) of the Convention), as well as granting the accused person adequate time and means for the preparation of his or her defense (Article 8.2(c) of the Convention). Both rights—to a hearing and defense—are related to each other, because “to provide a hearing to a person under investigation implies permitting him to defend himself The persons who were rehired are as follows: Aparicio De Sagastume Ligia Irasema Estrada, Arana Rivas, Magno Reginaldo, Caxaj Turnil Mario Juan Humberto, Cojti Marcia Carmen, Coroy Can Irma Araceli, De León Estacuy Samuel Guillermo, De León Macal German Eduardo, Echeverría Contreras Mario Joaquín, Ejucalon Majzul Irrael, Illesca García De Suarez Rosa Nelly, Gómez Morales María Coralia, Herrera De Ogaldez María Isabel Merida, Jutzuy Sanic Josefa, Lec Girón De Herrera Nidia Consuelo, López Girón Sandra Nineth, Méndez Rodas Rolando Efraín, Moya Ruiz Gloria Marina, Ortiz Domínguez Edna Araceli, Pellecer Cobar José René Cristian, Piedrasanta Ramírez De León Alba Dina, Reyes Martínez María Victoria, Roldán Castañeda Oliverio Edmundo, Salazar Villaseñor Welington Francisco, Sipac Sipac Norma Elizabeth, Trejo Castillo Hermelinda Esperanza, Valle Trinidad de Velásquez Lilian Elizabeth, Velásquez Ovalle María Eugenia, and Zamora Constancia Edgar Leonel. 41 Brief of observations on the merits of March 10, 2009 from the petitioners, p. 9. 42 IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12.600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al. “Magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102; I/A Court H.R. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 69-70; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, para. 111. 43 IACHR. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. A Review of the Standards Adopted by the InterAmerican System of Human Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129. September 7, 2007, paras. 98-123; and Case No. 12.828, Report 112/12, Marcel Granier et al., Venezuela, Merits, November 9, 2012, para. 188; I/A Court H.R. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127. 44 IACHR, Report No. 99/11, Case 12.597, Report on the Merits, Miguel Camba Campos et al. “Judges of the Constitutional Court,” Ecuador, July 22, 2011, para.94; I/A Court H.R. 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 Ordoñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of 3 de mayo de 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 89. I/A Court H.R. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 106 and 108. 45 Article 8.2 establishes that: 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. 46 I/A Court H.R. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74; and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 140. 40 11