the following minimum guarantees: […] b. prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him.” This precept orders the competent authorities to inform the accused of the accusation made against him, providing a clear, detailed and specific description of the facts, the grounds for the accusation and the crimes or offenses that he is accused of, prior to the proceedings. 128. Even though the contents of the notification will vary according to the stage of the investigation and the nature of the proceedings, as a minimum, the accused must be provided with, in as much detail as possible, the charges against him; this information will be most complete when the final charges are officially filed.106 The Court has established that, before giving the first statement, the accused must have been officially informed of the facts for which he is being prosecuted, and not to infer them from the questions asked.107 The Court also notes that this State obligation acquires greater relevance in criminal cases and when the accused is subject to deprivation of liberty, as in the instant case.108 B.1. Regarding the investigation by the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment and the ordinary criminal proceedings 129. First, the Court clarifies that, contrary to that indicated by the Commission, the first statement given by the alleged victim before the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment took place on September 5, 1994, as part of the military disciplinary proceedings, the same date on which he was detained (supra para. 43). On September 15, 1994, Mr. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio gave his statement before the Examining Judge of the National Police of Peru, in the ordinary criminal proceedings. 130. In the instant case, the Commission and the representative claimed that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was never notified of the accusations against him, while the State claimed that it was already proven in the process before the Commission that he was notified at the beginning of the investigation. The burden of proof of the notification or prior communication of the charges to the alleged victim falls on the State, who is in the best procedural position to provide such evidence. However, the State did not provide any evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was notified of the accusation prior to his first statement or of the reasons for his detention on September 5, 1994, even though it was expressly requested by the Court.109 The State only provided the transcripts of the victim’s statement before the Inspectorate of September 5 and 12, 1994,110 from which it cannot be inferred that he had knowledge, prior to his appearance, of an accusation against him or of the reasons for his detention.111 131. The State did not provide any evidence either that the alleged victim was notified of the charges in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction prior to his statement of September 15, 1994, before the Examining Judge of the National Police of Peru. Although the Court requested the State to provide it as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case,112 the State submitted the Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013, para. 199, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009, para. 31. 107 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005, paras. 67-68, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013, para. 199. 108 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005, para. 225, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 199. 109 Cf. Request for evidence made by the Court to the State, dated January 30, 2019 (merits file, folios 754 and 755). 110 Cf. Report No. 046-2019-JUS/CDJE-PPES related to the Case of Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru [or Brief submitted by the State of Peru] dated February 4, 2019 (merits file, folio 766); and Annexes to Report No. 046-2019JUS/CDJE-PPES related to the Case of Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio vs. Peru [or Brief submitted by the State of Peru] dated February 4, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3940-3951). 111 Cf. Statement of Lt. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio before the Investigation Officer, dated September 5, 1994, and Addendum to the Statement of Lt. Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio before the Investigation Officer, dated September 12, 1994 (evidence file, folios 3949-3951). 112 Secretariat’s Note of June 20, 2019. 106 30