carried out or about the reasons why she could be dismissed from her position. To that extent, the alleged victim was unaware that the breaches identified by the competent authority were serious and that she could exercise her right to defend herself against them. 78. There is also no record in the file to show that she was given the opportunity to present a written report and to submit defense evidence, as provided by the applicable regulations (supra para. 41). On this matter, the State argued that the personal interview was the appropriate mechanism for persons evaluated to exercise their right to defense, and that this opportunity was guaranteed to Mrs. Moya Solís. However, the interview took place on August 12, 1982, that is, before the visit to the court on August 26, 1982, in which the alleged cases of non-compliance were identified. To that extent, it is not reasonable to maintain that Mrs. Moya Solís could have exercised her right to defense in the interview, because at that time she had not been informed of any breach. 79. The State also argued that, because Mrs. Moya Solís signed the record of the committee members’ visit to the office, “she was aware of the observations on which the decision not to ratify her would be based[and] was able to present observations on statements in the aforementioned minutes if she did not agree with statements on her evaluation" and that, "[i]n Order No. 0015-82-TT dated September 13, 1982, to resolve the issue, it was recorded that the aforementioned considerations were not disproved by the alleged victim”. However, the Court notes that the file does not show that Mrs. Moya Solís was given the opportunity to exercise her right to defense during the Committee Members’ visit or subsequent to that date. 80. Pursuant to the foregoing, although Mrs. Moya Solís was informed of some cases of alleged non-compliance, during the visit on August 26, 1982, she was not informed that these could lead to non-ratification. This resulted because Mrs. Moya Solís did not know the evaluation criteria for judicial clerks. This situation, in the opinion of the Court, constitutes a violation of the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made, referred to in Article 8(2)b) of the American Convention. On this matter, the Court also notes that the criteria for evaluating the judicial clerks were not defined in law, which will be analyzed in light of the principle of legality (infra para. 80). 81. Furthermore, Mrs. Moya Solís was not informed of the reasons the identified breaches made her unsuitable to continue performing her duties, nor was she allowed to present her defense to the cases of non-compliance, nor was she given time to provide evidence to support her position. For this reason, her right to have adequate time and means of defense, contained in Article 8(2)c) of the American Convention, was violated. 82. Finally, the Court notes that the decision of non-ratification was notified to Mrs. Moya Solís through a communication sent by the President of the Labor and Labor Communities Court, which, however, did not indicate the reasons that led to the non-ratification, nor was it accompanied by a copy of the Order of September 13, 1982. Therefore, although Mrs. Moya Solís did not stop exercising the remedies available to her, as she did not know the reasons for her non-ratification, she did not have the appropriate means to exercise her right to defense. This situation also constitutes a violation of Article 8(2)c) of the Convention. B.2 In relation to the right to expect duly reasoned decisions and the principle of legality 83. In this case, the Commission and the presumed victim alleged the violation of the right to duly reasoned decisions (Article 8(1)) and the principle of legality (Article 9). In relation to the right to expect duly reasoned decisions, the Court reiterates that the motivation “is the 21