them impossible. The Commission also found that the alleged victim was verbally notified of the decision adopted in the ratification process, which affected her right to defense at the appeal stages. It further alleged that the ratification process did not establish duly defined grounds that would allow the alleged victim to understand the conduct that would be evaluated, and that the decision not to ratify lacked adequate rationale to justify the reasons Mrs. Moya Solís was not ratified. 62. The presumed victim alleged that the State violated her right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and the right to have adequate time and means of defense, as well as the right to expect duly reasoned decisions and the principle of legality. 63. The State alleged that the Commission intends to equate the ratification procedure for judicial clerks with a disciplinary procedure. However, not all administrative procedures involve the filing of charges. In this sense, a ratification procedure is a procedure that evaluates job performance, but does not refer to misdemeanors or crimes, because no charges or accusations are made against the individual. It indicated that in the ratification processes it is not appropriate to notify accusations or charges, as if it were a criminal process or a disciplinary administrative procedure, rather that the evaluation and ratification process constitutes a guarantee of efficiency and quality of the public service of the administration of justice. It acknowledged that general principles and guarantees are applicable to all administrative proceedings, including due process and the right to defense, which does not necessarily imply the right to know in advance and in detail the charge made, and that the ratification procedure did provide the means for the alleged victim to know which elements were considered when deciding to ratify her or not. 64. It also indicated that the presumed victim had knowledge of commencement of the ratification process and of the related actions. It indicated that Mrs. Moya Solís had the opportunity to hear the decision of non-ratification in a timely manner, otherwise she would not have been able to make the corresponding appeal. Regarding the rationale, it argued that the standards currently in force did not exist at the time of the events. In addition, it indicated that the decision not to ratify the presumed victim was based on deficiencies that were detected in the processing of some files. Finally, on the principle of legality, it reiterated that during the progress of the case in the domestic arena and before the Inter-American Commission, the legal framework of the ratification process was not questioned, for which it reiterated the request made on presentation of its preliminary objections. It also highlighted that the degree of precision of a regulation depends on the matter evaluated and asked the Court to take into account that, in this case, the nature of the process was not disciplinary. In any case, the State indicated that the Organic Law of the Judiciary established the duties and obligations of judicial clerks. D. Considerations of the Court 65. The Court will then proceed to present its considerations (1) in relation to the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense and (2) in relation to the right to expect duly reasoned decisions and the principle of legality. B.1 Regarding the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense 66. This Court has repeatedly indicated that, although Article 8 of the American Convention is entitled “Right to a Fair Trial” its application is not limited to judicial remedies in the strict sense, 17