154. Moreover, according to this Court’s case law, the right to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense obliges the State to allow the individual access to knowledge of the proceedings brought against them and implies that the adversarial principle must be respected, which guarantees the person’s participation in analyzing the evidence. 147 In addition, the appropriate means of presenting the defense include all the materials and evidence used, as well as the exculpatory documents. 148 In relation to the processes for evaluation of public officials, the Court finds that this guarantee implies that the person evaluated has the right to know the reasons the competent authorities consider that there is incompetence or non-compliance, to offer arguments aimed at refuting the authorities’ position before a final decision and, in general, to offer evidence of the adequacy of their performance. 149 155. In this section, it is necessary to examine whether the State has violated the rights to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense enshrined in Article 8(2), paragraphs (b) and (c) of the American Convention, as alleged by the Commission and the representatives. 156. On this issue, as already indicated, as the procedure applied to the alleged victims was regulated, the commission in charge assessed all the documentation and information received, ordered, processed, and analyzed it. After which, the Permanent Commission of Comprehensive Evaluation and Ratification of the CNM prepared the report that was presented to the plenary session of the CNM, so that it could decide on whether to ratify the evaluated officer or not. The Court has verified, according to the reports, that the alleged victims underwent a qualitative assessment, according to the evaluation criteria for judges (suitability and conduct) and for prosecutors (jurisdictional output, professional training, and professional behavior) and graded marks (supra para. 146). 157. In this sense, for the Court, the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made, in the case of evaluation and ratification processes of judges and prosecutors, implied that the evaluated persons had knowledge of, whether prior to the issuance of the ratification decision or not, the report issued by the CNM Permanent Commission for the Evaluation and Ratification of Judges and Prosecutors that would serve as a basis for the competent authority to determine their tenure in office. This allowed the judges evaluated to have knowledge of the breach of their obligations identified by the authority, which is also essential for the exercise of the right to defense. 150. 158. In this case, the alleged victims did not have the opportunity to hear the report issued by the Permanent Commission for the Evaluation and Ratification of Judges and Prosecutors of the CNM and, therefore, they were not able to disprove said report or present defense evidence. For this reason, this Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense, contained in Articles 8(2)b) and 8(2)c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same Convention, to the detriment of Messrs. Cuya, Valenzuela, Díaz, and Ms. Rodríguez. B.4. Political rights 159. Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention establishes the right to access public office under general conditions of equality. In this regard, this Court has interpreted that access under conditions of 147 Cf. Mutatis Mutandi, Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 178, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 72. 148 Mutatis Mutandi, Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela, supra, para. 154, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 72. 149 Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 72. 150 Cf. Mutatis Mutandi Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 71. 40