and receive the necessary evidence in defense.55 To that effect, the regulations were aimed at ensuring that, in the cases in which the member in charge of the investigation found a breach by a Clerk, this situation would be brought to the attention of the person evaluated who would be given the opportunity to submit a written report and to provide evidence in defense. The foregoing implies that the evaluated person should, at least, know of the alleged non-compliance and its consequences and have adequate time and means to defend themself. 75. According to the evidence in the case file, the proceedings against Mrs. Moya Solís began with a personal interview that took place on August 12, 1982. According to the record provided by the State, there was no observation and the following was recorded: "RESULT: Good".56 Two weeks after the interview, on August 26, 1982, a visit was made by the Committee of Members to Mrs. Moya Solís' office. During the visit the files in process were reviewed and some cases of alleged non-compliance were identified. The report, signed by the Ratifications Commission, states: 2. In file No. 1155-82 […] there is a power of attorney that does not bear the signature of the judge, but is authorized by the Clerk; in Exp. 1025-81 […] the date of notification does not appear, however, the Clerk has authorized said proof of notification, in Exp. No. 3084-81 the subpoena was issued on September 25, 1981, where in points 3 and 4 of the answering brief it has been provided that a letter be sent to the Institutions, without having complied with said letters to date, leaving said file paralyzed due to said omission; 3. The Consignment Register was reviewed, finding that there are three annotations up to page eight, but neither the date on which the consignment is made, nor the date on which it is delivered, has not been noted in many of them. Furthermore, in some, no certificate number or quantity is noted, as in the case of Exp. 3121-81 […]. The claim entry register was reviewed and found to be compliant. The register of deliveries to the Judge for sentencing was also found to be compliant. 4. The office is up to date.57 76. In addition, the State provided a document entitled “Summary of the reports obtained for the ratification of the secretaries,” without a date, which indicates: Clerk: DOCUMENTATION: VISIT, REVIEW OF RECORDS AND REGISTERS: REPORT OF THE JUDGE: PERSONAL EXTREVIEW: REPORT OF THE VISITING MEMBER FROM 1980 AND 1981: REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL VISIT CARRIED OUT BY THE OFFICE […] OF INTERNAL CONTROL 1981: REPORT FROM THE COLLEGE OF LAWYERS: COMPLAINTS […]: MISCELLANEOUS: CONCLUSION: MOYA SOLIS DE ROCHA LAW STUDENT FAIR PARTLY FAVORABLE GOOD SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY NONE NONE PENALTY - HAS WARNING PARTLY FAVORABLE58 77. The Court notes that, in the documents provided by the parties, there is no record that Mrs. Moya Solís was informed about the general criteria under which the ratification process was 55 Cf. Supreme Decree No. 003-82-JUS of January 12, 1982 (evidence file, folio 11). 56 Cf. Record of personal interview of August 12, 1982 (evidence file, folio 727). 57 Cf. Record of the Ratification Commission of August 26, 1982 (evidence file, folios 729 to 730). 58 Cf. Summary of the reports obtained for the ratification of the Clerks (evidence file, folio 732). 20