MARTÍNEZ has the right to the TRADE UNION JURISDICTION yet as she is a PROSECUTOR OF THE REPUBLIC BEFORE THE CIRCUIT JUDGES she cannot enjoy the guarantee of Trade Union Jurisdiction as per Paragraph 1 of Article 406 of the CST. 20 49. As the alleged victim indicated, on that same date she filed an appeal; it was resolved on December 22, 2010, four years after it was filed. 21 The State indicated that said delay was due to the number of matters pending before the court that took cognizance of the appeal. IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Right to judicial guarantees 22 and freedom from ex post facto laws 23 1. General considerations on the guarantees applicable to proceedings for imposing sanctions for determining rights 50. The Commission recalls that both organs of the inter-American system have indicated that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention are not limited to criminal proceedings, but also apply to other types of proceedings. 24 Specifically, both organs of the system have indicated that by analogy the guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention apply to sanction-imposing proceedings. 25 In proceedings in which rights or interests are in play, the “due guarantees” established at Article 8(1) of the American Convention apply, including the right to sufficient reasoning. 26 In addition, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that due process guarantees must be respected and ensured in the context of administrative proceedings that conclude in the dismissal of a public servant. 27 51. Accordingly, the determination of what are the due guarantees in a specific proceeding for the determination of rights must be made taking into account the nature of the proceeding and the legal interests at stake. 28 20 Annex 14. Decision of the Seventh Labor Court of Cartagena, December 13, 2006. Annex to the communication from the petitioner, September 30, 2009. 21 Communication from the alleged victim, September 30, 2009. 22 Article 8(1) of the Convention states: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” Article 8(2) establishes, at the relevant part: “2. 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.” 23 Article 9 of the American Convention establishes: “No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom.” 24 IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12,600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al. “Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102; I/A Court HR. 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. 25 IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12,600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al. “Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102; I/A Court HR. 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. 26 I/A Court HR. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 118; and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 118. ECHR, Cudak v. Lithuania. Application No. 15869/025. Judgment of March 23, 2010, para. 42. I/A Court HR. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, paras. 118-119. 27 28 8