70. With regard to the guarantee of impartiality of the court, the Commission observes that the petitioner alleged that the President of the JEM, as well as other deputies and senators who were members, had an interest in intervening and retaliating because of the corruption cases the petitioner had been investigating. The IACHR notes that the petitioner made this allegation before the Supreme Court, when he filed the action of unconstitutionality, but that the Supreme Court did not respond to this claim. Along these same lines, the Commission observes that the alleged victim filed a challenge against the President of the JEM and other members of the jury, alleging improper actions, but that this challenge was rejected by the JEM itself. The petitioner also indicates that his sanction proceeding concluded the same day he lodged a formal accusation against the President of the JEM, Oscar González Daher, in the context of a case he was investigating. The Commission considers that such aspects would be problematic when it comes to analyzing the impartiality of the JEM, because they could suggest a situation of retaliation against a prosecutor for investigations he was carrying out against political authorities. 71. Despite the foregoing, the case file does not include either the challenge that was filed or the decision on the matter. The Commission also observes that Judgment S.D. No. 02/03 of April 7, 2003, which determined the alleged victim’s dismissal, was not signed by the President of the JEM, Oscar González Daher. Based on the above considerations, the Commission considers that it does not have the elements at hand to determine whether there has been a violation of the guarantee of impartiality. 3. The right of defense and the principle of consistency44 and reasonable time45 72. The Inter-American Court has established that under Article 8 of the Convention, the right to an adequate defense is a component of due process, and for this right to be observed, a defendant must be able to defend his interests or rights effectively and in full procedural equality with other defendants46 and be fully informed of the charges against him.47 73. When determining the scope of the guarantees contained in Article 8(2) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that the role of the “indictment” must be considered in criminal due process vis-à-vis the right to a defense. The material description of the attributed conduct contains the factual information included in the indictment, which is the indispensable reference for the exercise of the defense of the accused and the consequent consideration of the judge in the verdict. Therefore, the defendant has the right to know, through a clear, detailed, and precise description, the facts he is being charged with. Their legal classification may be modified during the process by the prosecutor or the judge, without this violating the right to a defense, when the facts themselves remain invariable and the procedural guarantees included in the law for the change to the new classification are observed. The so-called “principle of coherence or correlation between the indictment and the conviction” implies that the judgment may fall only upon the facts or circumstances included in the indictment.48 74. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has held that because the principle of coherence or correlation is an indispensable corollary of the right to a defense, it constitutes a fundamental guarantee of due process, under the obligations laid out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 8(2) of the Convention. Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes, in its pertinent sections: “Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During 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; c. adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; d. the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; …f. the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts.” 45 Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that every person “has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 46 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, Series A No. 18, para. 121. 47 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators: Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, para. 219. 48 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 20, 2005, Series C No. 126, para. 67. 44 14