In this case, the Commission and the presumed victim alleged the violation of Article 8(2), subsections b and c, that is, of the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and the right to have adequate time and means for a defense, guarantees that, in the Court's opinion, are applicable to the specific case, although their scope must be specified according to the characteristics of the evaluation or ratification processes. 71. In relation to the first of these rights, the Court has established that it implies that a material description of the imputed conduct is made containing the factual data collected in the accusation, which constitutes the essential point of reference for the defense. Hence, the accused has the right to know, through a clear, detailed and accurate description, the conduct attributed to them.51 In the Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, the Court referred to this guarantee and indicated that, in order to satisfy it, “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”.52 However, the Court finds that, in the case of processes of evaluation or ratification of public officers, the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made implies that the persons evaluated have precise knowledge of the general evaluation criteria used by the competent authority to determine their tenure in office. The above implies the ability to establish whether the breach identified by the authority is of such magnitude that it may lead to their non-ratification, which is also essential for the exercise of the right to defense. 72. Furthermore, according to the jurisprudence of this Court, the right to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense, obliges the State to allow the person access to knowledge of the proceedings brought against them and implies that the adversarial principle must be respected, which guarantees the person’s participation in analyzing the evidence.53 In addition, the appropriate means of presenting the defense includes all the materials and evidence used, as well as the exculpatory documents.54 In relation to the processes for evaluation of public officers, the Court finds that this guarantee implies that the person evaluated has the right to know the reasons the competent authorities consider that there is incompetence or non-compliance, to offer arguments aimed at refuting the authorities’ position before a final decision and, in general, to offer evidence of the adequacy of their performance 73. Pursuant to the foregoing, it is for the Court to analyze the specific case to establish whether it guaranteed the rights of Mrs. Moya Solís to (i) know precisely the general evaluation criteria used by the competent authority to determine her tenure in her role; (ii) know the reasons why the competent authorities considered that she was not suitable to continue performing her duties; (iii) present, before making a decision, the arguments aimed at disproving the alleged breaches; and (iv) offer evidence. 74. In this case, the Court finds that, in accordance with the regulations in force at the time of the events, within the framework of the evaluation process of the judicial clerks, the commissioned member for the investigation should (a) review the files pending to issue the report on the performance of the clerk; (b) specify the cases of non-compliance with the legal obligations incurred by the clerk; and (c) obtain a written report from the clerk in the cases of non-compliance 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 Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 113. 52 Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 28. 53 Cf. Mutatis Mutandi, Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 178 and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 153. 54 Cf. Mutatis Mutandi, Caso Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. 154. 51 19