on the States the duty to provide the protection of the law against such attacks. In general terms, this Court has indicated that the right to privacy is related to self-esteem and worth, while reputation refers to the opinion that others have of a person.” 142 In consideration of the foregoing and in application of the principle of iura novit curia (‘the court knows the law’), this Court considers that the lack of substantiation for the CNM decisions for the non-ratification of Messrs. Cuya, Valenzuela and Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez also caused an impairment of the right to privacy of the aforementioned alleged victims, provided for in Article 11(1) of the Convention. 150. Lastly, this Court considers that in this specific case the regulations of the evaluation and ratification procedure did not require the CNM to substantiate its decisions, which was incompatible with the purposes of the American Convention, since the decisions did not show a reasoned justification that would allow understanding of the reasons that led the judge to make a decision not to ratify the alleged victims. Therefore, the Court considers that the regulations applied in this case violate Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to Article 8(1) thereof. 151. Consequently, the Court considers that the State failed in its duty to substantiate the nonratification decisions enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment by Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. Similarly, the Court considers that the State is responsible for not protecting the right to privacy contained in Article 11(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna and Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy. B.3. Regarding the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense 152. Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes the minimum guarantees that must be ensured by the States based on due legal process. 143 The Court has ruled in its case law on the scope of this article and has established that it is not limited to criminal proceedings, but has extended it, as appropriate, to administrative proceedings before state authorities and to non-criminal judicial proceedings in the constitutional, administrative and labor sphere. 144 Similarly, it has indicated that, both in these and in other types of matters, "the individual also has the right, in general, to due process that is applied in criminal matters." 145 This indicates that the guarantees of Article 8(2) of the Convention are not exclusive to criminal proceedings but can be applied to proceedings of a punitive nature. The issue in each case is to determine the minimum guarantees that concern a specific non-criminal punitive process, in accordance with its nature and scope. 146 153. In the case of evaluation or ratification processes for public officials, the Court reiterates the previously indicated 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 non-ratification, which is also essential for the exercise of the right to defense (supra para. 142). 142 Cf. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panamá. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 57, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 102. 143 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 137, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 68. 144 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218; Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra. 145 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 70, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 68. 146 Cf. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 75, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 68. 39