contradiction" in the regulations, the Commission argued that the State did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to how the right to appeal was available to the alleged victim, despite the more specific regulation concerning the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal excluding the possibility of challenging its decisions. Consequently, it was concluded that the State is responsible for violating the right recognized in Article 8(2) (h) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same international instrument. 78. The representatives stated that the impossibility of appealing through administrative channels the sanction imposed by the Disciplinary Court, in accordance with Article 84 of the National Police Disciplinary Regulations, constituted a violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. 79. The State indicated that in accordance with Article 67 of the Law on Personnel of the National Police in force at the time of the events, "police personnel who believed they were illegally discharged could appeal to the corresponding Council." It was a simple, ordinary, and accessible resource, in line with inter-American jurisprudence, which, although available to the alleged victim, was never raised. B. Considerations of the Court B.1. Right to prior and detailed communication of the charges, to sufficient time and appropriate means for the preparation of the defense, and to appeal the judgment. 80. Regarding the content of the right to a fair trial, enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention, is not limited to trials in the strictest sense of the word, “but rather the procedural requirements that should be observed,”61 in order for all persons to be able to defend their rights adequately vis-à-vis any type of State action that could affect them. That is to say that the due process of law must be respected in any act or omission on the part of the State bodies in a proceeding, whether of a punitive administrative, or of a judicial nature.62 81. In this sense, and according to the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention, 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. Failure to comply with one of these guarantees results in a violation of this provision of the Convention.63 82. To this effect, even in labor and administrative matters, the discretionality of the administration has limits that may not be exceeded, one such limit being respect for human rights.64 Similarly, the Court has indicated that it is demandable to any public authority, whether administrative, legislative, or judicial, whose decisions can affect the rights of people, Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27(2), 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of August 31, 2022. Series C No. 463, para. 59. 62 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 124, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 59. 63 Cf. Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 117, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 64. 64 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama,supra, para. 126, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 65. 61