“but [to] the set of requirements that must be observed in the procedural stages” 44 so that individuals can adequately defend themselves against any type of action by the State that may affect their rights, so that any action or omission by state bodies within a process, be it administrative, punitive or jurisdictional, must respect due legal process.45 67. In this context, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in determining the rights and obligations of a criminal, civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature, individuals have the right to be heard, with due guarantees and within a reasonable timeframe, by a competent, independent and impartial judge or court, previously established by law. The breach of any of these guarantees implies the violation of said provision of the Convention.46 68. Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes the minimum guarantees that must be ensured by the States based on due legal process.47 The Court has ruled in its case law on the scope of this article and has established that it is not limited to criminal proceedings, but has extended it, as appropriate, to administrative proceedings before state authorities and to non-criminal judicial proceedings in the constitutional, administrative and labor sphere.48 Additionally, it has indicated that, both in these and in other types of matters, "the individual also has the right, in general, to due process that is applied in criminal matters."49 This indicates that the guarantees of Article 8(2) of the Convention are not exclusive to criminal proceedings but can be applied to proceedings of a punitive nature. The issue in each case is to determine the minimum guarantees that concern a specific non-criminal punitive process, in accordance with its nature and scope.50 69. However, this case refers to a process of ratification of a judicial officer. This process evaluated the performance of the alleged victim, in order to establish whether she was ratified in her position or dismissed. The State alleged that evaluation processes differ from disciplinary processes, since the former seek to evaluate the officer from time to time, while the latter seek to establish whether the officer committed an administrative infringement. However, both processes are aimed at evaluating an officer’s conduct and suitability, either periodically or as a result of an alleged infringement. In addition, when an evaluation process concludes that the officer’s performance rating was not satisfactory and the officer must therefore be removed from their position, it becomes a materially punitive process, since the dismissal of the person evaluated is a penalty for poor performance. 70. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, insofar as the process involves possible dismissal of judicial officers evaluated in cases of incompetence or poor performance, the guarantees of due process inherent to disciplinary processes are applicable to an evaluation or ratification process although the content or intensity of their scope may vary. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27. 45 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 Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319, para. 209. 46 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 Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 72. 47 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 137, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 73. 48 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218; Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala, supra. 49 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 70. 50 Cf. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 75. 44 18