foregoing, the Commission concluded that the State violated the right to defend oneself enshrined in Article 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to guarantee rights established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio. 123. The representative agreed with the Commission. However, it added that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was not notified of the charges before his first statement of September 15, 1994, in the ordinary criminal proceedings. 124. The State claimed, in relation to the investigation by the Inspectorate, that in the process before the Commission it was able to evidence, by presenting documentation, that the allegedly omitted notifications were in fact performed. Furthermore, it requested the Court to take into consideration the repeated lack of accuracy by the other party, which makes it hard to obtain documents that are over 20 years old. Regarding the military criminal proceedings, the State indicated that contrary to that expressed by the representative regarding the “lack of notification of procedural documents,” they were in fact correctly notified, and that the representative was insincere and unclear when expressing his arguments, which should be considered by the Court in view of the alleged failure to notify the accusation dated October 17, 1995. In this regard, it indicated that the notification of the aforementioned accusation was ordered; however, since the military criminal proceedings took place over 20 years ago, it was unable to obtain it, but it would reasonable to presume that it was performed. B. Considerations of the Court 125. This Court has indicated that the application of the guarantees contained in Article 8 of the American Convention, although titled “Judicial Guarantees,” is not strictly limited to judicial remedies, but rather to the series of requirements that should be observed in procedural instances to ensure that the individual is able to defend his rights adequately concerning any type of act by the State that could infringe them. In other words, any act or omission of the State organs in the course of proceedings, whether these are punitive administrative, disciplinary, or jurisdictional, must respect due process of law.102 In each case it is important to determine the minimum guarantees for the specific non-criminal punitive proceedings, according to their nature and scope.103 126. Concerning the punitive nature of the proceedings that retired Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, since retirement is established as a disciplinary measure in conformity with Articles 55 and 61 of the Law on the Military Status of Army, Navy and Air Force Officers, 104 based on offenses against honor, decorum, moral and military duties, specifically the offense against the duty and dignity of the service, falsehood, negligence, offense against the administration of justice, failure to obey a lawful order, abuse of authority and illicit drug trafficking, 105 the Court considers that the procedural guarantees contemplated in Article 8 of the American Convention, including some of those listed in Article 8(2), are part of the minimum guarantees that should be respected in order to adopt a decision that is not arbitrary and that conforms to due process. Therefore, the guarantees mentioned should have been applied mutatis mutandis to the disciplinary proceedings in this case, considering their punitive juridical nature and consequences. 127. In this regard, Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention establishes that “[e]very 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 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 164. 103 Cf. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016, para. 75. 104 Cf. Law on the Military Status of Army, Navy and Air Force Officers (evidence file, folios 3900-3920) and Order of the Army General Command, March 3, 1995 (evidence file, folios 82 and 83). 105 Cf. Minutes of the Investigative Council for Junior Officers (evidence file, folio 57). 102 29