developed the obligation to substantiate the CNM's decisions in regard to ratification. 107 According to the State, during the evaluation and ratification processes of the alleged victims, there did exist a legal framework that determined the criteria to be evaluated, which corresponded to a ratification process and not to a disciplinary process that had to establish the progressive nature of offenses or other issue of a disciplinary nature. The decision made by the Plenary of the CNM regarding the ratification of the magistrate was not a simple discretionary statement, since said decisions were issued on the basis of previously established criteria and reports issued by the Permanent Commission for Evaluation and Ratification of CNM Judges and Prosecutors. The State indicated that the use of criteria that include “indeterminate legal concepts” grants a margin of appreciation to an authority, be it judicial, or as in the specific administrative case (CNM) to determine the content and extension of the concept applicable to a particular or specific situation. A.2. Regarding the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense 114. The Commission considered that, in the evaluation and ratification procedure, the CNM did not present charges or accusations against the alleged victims, nor were they informed about complaints or accusations against them that would allow them to present evidence or defense in regard to them. The regulatory framework did not foresee the presentation of charges or an accusation, and the interview that was carried out, which was attended by some of the alleged victims, could not be understood as an adequate defense mechanism in the aforementioned circumstances of not knowing the specific reasons by which their non-ratification could be ordered. It added, in relation to the principle of legality, that the criteria established by law for the evaluation process, in the abstract, fail to correct the absence of an individual notification with a real possibility of defense. By virtue of this, the Commission considered that the State violated Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument to the detriment of the alleged victims. 115. Regarding Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, the representatives argued that the Process of Evaluation and Ratification of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service did not foresee the presentation of charges or a precise accusation for pre-established acts as disciplinary offenses, which would allow the magistrates to know the reasons that could subsequently substantiate the National Council of the Judiciary’s decision to ratify them or not, and, where appropriate, defend themselves. Mr. Cuya Lavy was never informed of the existence of charges or other types of accusations against him for which he would be evaluated and against which he needed to defend himself. Nor did he have the time necessary to offer the evidence in his favor that he deemed appropriate. The non-ratification decision did not provide any substantiation as to the reasons for such a decision. Consequently, they concluded that the State violated Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy. The State argued that with the enactment of the Constitutional Procedural Code - Law No. 28237, published in the Official Gazette ‘El Peruano’ on May 31, 2004, and which entered into force six months after its publication, it follows contrario sensu that the constitutional processes regarding final resolutions of the CNM, when these are unsubstantiated and/or when they have been issued without hearing the interested party; thus establishing the requirement to substantiate said resolutions. The CNM established the mandatory substantiation of the Resolutions issued within the framework of the evaluation and ratification processes, with the issuance of the Regulation approved by means of CNM Resolution No. 1019-2005-CNM146, of July 1, 2005. Similarly, through CNM Resolution No. 039-2006-PCNM, of July 13, 2006, article 32 of CNM Resolution No. 1019-2005-CNM was modified, in the sense that the decision of ratification or non-ratification is the result of a substantiated decision. According to the State all future regulations issued by the CNM established the obligation to substantiate decisions. The case law criterion of the Constitutional Court through the binding precedent contained in the Resolution of August 12, 2005, File No. 3361-2004-AA/TC, indicated the obligatory nature of the substantiation of resolutions issued by the CNM, establishing that said criterion would be effective for events occurring after the aforementioned precedent. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court established a new precedent contained in the Resolution of February 11, 2009, File No. 01412-2007-PA/TC, in which it indicated that the CNM resolutions regarding the ratification of judges and prosecutors must be substantiated, regardless of the time they were issued. 107 30