37 Narcotics (supra paras. 67 and 68). This report, if it were the case, would prove the existence of any narcotic and would include a sample of the drug that was destroyed. The State never complied with the proceedings established in the national legislation in relation to the report of reference. 114. Despite that it was not proven by technical or scientific means, as demanded by law, that the substances which were allegedly in Mr. Acosta Calderón’s possession were narcotics, the courts continued with the process against the accused based on the statement made by the police (supra para. 50(2)) who performed the arrest. This proves that they tried to incriminate Mr. Acosta Calderón without enough evidence to do so, presuming that he was guilty and violating the principle of presumption of innocence. 115. For the above reasons, the Court declares that the State violated in detriment of Mr. Acosta Calderón the right to the presumption of innocence, recognized in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of the same instrument. c) Regarding the right of the accused to receive prior notification in detail of the charges against him 116. Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention establishes that: [d]uring 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; 117. In this sense, in General Observation No. 13 regarding the “Equality before the Courts and the right of every person to be heard publicly by a competent tribunal established by law (Art. 14)”, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations stated that: the right to be informed “without delay” of the charges requires that the information be provided in the form described as soon as the accusation is formulated by a competent authority, In the Committee’s opinion, this right must appear when, during the course of an investigation, a tribunal or an authority of the Office of the Public Prosecutor decides to adopt procedural measures against a person suspicious of having committed a crime or designated publicly as such. The specific demands of section a) of paragraph 3 may be satisfied by formulating the accusation either verbally or in writing, as long as they include both the law and the alleged facts on which the information is based. 118. Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention orders that the competent judicial authorities notify the accused of the charges presented against him, their reasons, and the crimes or offenses he is charged with, prior to the execution of the process.79 In order for this right to fully operate and satisfy its inherent purposes, it is necessary that this notification be given before the accused offers his first statement. Without this guarantee, the latter’s right to duly prepare his defense would be infringed. 119. In the sub judice case it was proven that the alleged victim did not have opportune knowledge of the accusation presented against him, since the legislation that included in the elements of the crime applicable to his case was not mentioned in the court order to investigate the alleged crime (supra para. 50(5)). Therefore, the 79 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 187; and Eur. Court HR. Case of Péllissier and Sassi v France. Judgment of 25 March 1999, para. 51.