116. Regarding Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, the representatives recalled that the alleged victim was dismissed without knowing in advance the motive for the accusation and referred to statements by the Commission in its Merits Report. Similarly, they pointed out that during the evaluation and ratification process there was no guarantee of the conditions for the alleged victim to be able to defend his interests and rights effectively. Firstly, Mr. Valenzuela Cerna was not allowed to know the content of the charges or accusation against him. Second, he was not informed about the allegations and/or complaints made against him in order to allow him to present evidence or a defense. The representatives noted that the latter violated the adversarial principle, which prevented a greater balance between the parties in the defense of their rights and interests. Due to the foregoing, the alleged victim was unable to defend himself, showing a lack of impartiality and a presumption of guilt by the CNM. All of this in violation of Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) of the same instrument. 117. The State argued that the current regulations 108 established how said process should be carried out and specified what guarantees were acknowledged for the judges and prosecutors evaluated. The alleged victims were aware of the aspects that the CNM evaluated since there is a direct relationship between the provisions of the Rules of Procedure and the criteria and parameters with which the alleged victims were evaluated and subsequently not ratified. The criteria on the process were similarly regulated in articles 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the aforementioned regulations, in such a way that the regulations did provide criteria that would allow the magistrates to know the reasons justifying the CNM’s decision to ratify them or not. 109 It argued that the alleged victims were informed of the beginning of the evaluation and ratification process, in accordance with the regulations, therefore, they not only knew in advance which topics could be the subject of questions in the interview, but were also empowered to send the information provided for in the aforementioned regulations to the CNM. Although there was no presentation of charges or accusation, in view of the nature of the process of evaluation and ratification of magistrates, the alleged victims were able to know which aspects would be evaluated by the CNM, 110 in accordance with national regulations. In addition, the State indicated that the interview within a process of evaluation and ratification of judges and prosecutors constitutes one of the guarantees that includes the right to due process. 111 The State concluded that although the design of the evaluation and ratification process, as provided for in the normative framework in force at the time of the non-ratification of all the alleged victims, did not anticipate the presentation of charges or an accusation (because it is not possible to equate a disciplinary process to an evaluation and ratification process), it did provide the means for them to know the guidelines and criteria that the CNM considered in order to decide on their ratification or non-ratification. A.3. Political Rights 108 The State pointed to the Regulations for the Process of Evaluation and Ratification of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution, CNM Resolution No. 043-2000-CNM and CNM Resolution No. 241-2002-CNM, supra. 109 The State argued that the alleged victims did have the possibility of accessing the file, according to a decision of the Constitutional Court of August 12, 2005, which indicated “from the generic argument it follows that every magistrate subject to ratification has the right to access: (a) a copy of the personal interview, as the hearing is of a public nature, through the record of the public act carried out, and not only the video thereof; (b) the copy of the part of the minutes of the Plenary Session of the CNM that contains the voting and non-ratification agreement of the evaluated magistrate; and, (c) the copy of the Report of the Permanent Commission of Evaluation and Ratification. Similar to the criterion adopted by the new Regulation of Evaluation and Ratification of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution, by establishing, in its statement of substantiation and in its third supplementary and final provision that the magistrate may request copies of the elements of the file and the final report. In addition, he referred to the ruling of the Constitutional Court of January 27, 2003, File No. 1941-2002-AA/TC. 110 The State noted that the reports and complaints that the judges and prosecutors would have, in accordance with the regulatory framework, are duly notified in a timely manner, and the judges and prosecutors had the opportunity to hear them (within a corresponding disciplinary procedure). 111 This was stated by the Constitutional Court in the Judgment of January 27, 2003, in File No. 1941-2002-AA/TC., which interpreted the Regulations approved by Resolution No. 043-2000-CNM. 31