against him, with an indication of the alleged facts or their legal characterization. As a result, it was concluded that the State did not demonstrate that the alleged victim had clear and comprehensive information regarding the initiation of proceedings against them and the factual and legal basis for such proceedings. 63. It also pointed out that the statement made by Mr. Mina Cuero before the Judicial Police was made without legal assistance, and that prior to the hearing of October 25, 2000, one of the lawyers assisting him requested to postpone the proceedings in order to properly prepare the defense, which was denied by the Disciplinary Court. By virtue of the above, the Commission concluded that Ecuador is responsible for violating the rights recognized in Articles 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), and 8(2)(d) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, causing harm to Mr. Mina Cuero. 64. The representatives stated that the alleged victim was not notified "prior and in detail" of the charges against him, and that "he was not informed in a timely manner" about the hearing to be held in the proceedings. This denial of timely notification deprived him of the opportunity to adequately prepare his defense. He pointed out that his defense attorney also did not have sufficient time to prepare his defense. 65. He indicated that the alleged facts attributed to the victim were not clear and would have determined the procedure against him. He added that he did not have the assistance of a defense attorney when giving his statement on September 18, 2000. 66. The State asserted that, according to the records, the alleged victim "was aware from the first procedural action set on September 18, 2000, [...] as evidenced in the police investigation report." Therefore, he had sufficient time and access to adequate means to prepare his defense, as demonstrated by the appearance of Mr. Mina Cuero's cousin as a witness at the procedure's hearing. 67. It was indicated that the alleged victim had the representation of his lawyer, who participated in the procedure without restrictions, and "moreover, did so in accordance with the Inter-American standard, considering that potential effects on Mr. Mina Cuero's rights could be traced or evidenced." It was added that the alleged victim had legal representation "undoubtedly, based on all the remedies and actions filed." A.2. Principle of presumption of innocence regarding the use of criminal records in the sanction of dismissal. 68. The Commission argued that, in sanctioning the alleged victim, the Disciplinary Court took into account the criminal process that had ended with dismissal, as well as two disciplinary sanctions imposed on Mr. Mina Cuero that had been "overturned by the Constitutional Court." In other words, the mere fact of having been subjected to disciplinary or criminal proceedings, even if they did not result in sanctions, was a factor considered by the Disciplinary Court as recidivism and, therefore, an aggravating factor. The Commission determined that the State violated the principle of presumption of innocence and, consequently, failed to observe Article 8(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Mina Cuero. 69. The representatives argued that the fact that the Disciplinary Court had considered as an aggravating factor of recidivism acts that had previously been declared unconstitutional, as well as a judicial decision of dismissal, constitutes a violation of the right to presumption of innocence.