detailed, and precise description, the facts he is being charged with.74 This Court has determined that the State must notify the accused not only of the charges against him, that is, the crimes or offenses he is charged with, but also of the reasons for them, and the evidence for such charges and the legal definition of the facts.75 86. Furthermore, in accordance with this Court’s jurisprudence, the right to adequate time and means to prepare the defense, enshrined in Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention, requires the State to guarantee the defendant’s access to the case file against him. Similarly, it must respect the adversarial principle, which guarantees the defendant’s involvement in the analysis of the evidence.76 Regarding the adequate means required for the preparation of the defense, this includes all the material and evidence that the prosecution wishes to use against the accused, together with exculpatory documents.77 87. In the specific case, the Court notes that there is no written notification in the proceedings indicating that the alleged victim was informed of the specific reasons for initiating the administrative procedure against him, nor the potential legal configuration, that is the normative grounds that would determine the probable commission of disciplinary offenses by Mr. Mina Cuero. Consequently, the lack of a notification that met such requirements prevented the alleged victim from properly exercising the right to defense, as he was unaware of the specific facts that he had to address in formulating his defense strategy. 88. Regarding the State's argument that the alleged victim was aware of the proceedings since the hearing on September 18, 2000, it should be noted that on that date Mr. Mina Cuero provided his statement to an investigator from the Judicial Police, in the presence of a prosecutor from the Public Ministry. However, in the record documenting that proceeding, there is no evidence that the alleged victim was informed of the specific facts giving rise to the procedure, nor how such conduct constituted an administrative offence.78 89. Thus, in the statement before the Court, the alleged victim stated that he was informed that the hearing would take place one day before it actually did, and the State has not provided any evidence to contradict this claim. Indeed, no document was offered as evidence to verify the notification to the interested party of the date, time, and location of the hearing with sufficient advance notice to adequately prepare his defense. 90. Although Mr. Mina Cuero appeared at the hearing alongside his private defense attorney and proposed the testimony of a cousin as evidence, who was not allowed to testify, this does not determine that the interested party was granted adequate time and means to prepare his defense. 91. Finally, regarding the right to appeal the judgment, the Court determines that there was confusion in the legal system in force at the time of the events, while the Disciplinary Regulations of the National Police excluded the possibility of "complaining" against the 74 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 67, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 71. 75 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 28, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 71. 76 Cf. Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra,para. 72. 77 Cf. Caso Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 154, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra,para. 72. 78 Cf. Statement of Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero, given to the National Police on September 18, 2000 (case file of evidence, volume I, annex 4 to the Merits Report, pages 14 to 16).