aforementioned transcript of the statement of September 15, 1994, indicating that during that [hearing] “[Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio] was informed of the charges brought against him.”113 132. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to prior notification in detail of the charges against him, enshrined in Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, as regards to the ordinary criminal proceedings and the military disciplinary proceedings. B.2. Regarding the military criminal proceedings 133. As regards to the military criminal proceedings, the records indicate that on October 17, 1995, the Military Prosecutor’s Office presented an accusation before the President of the Permanent War Council of the Fifth Judicial Military Area against Lt. Rosadio Villavicencio, as responsible for offenses against the duty and dignity of the service and abuse of authority.114 134. In the instant case, the representative claimed that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was never notified of the aforementioned accusation. The State recognized that it does not have the documentation to prove that notification, justifying it by indicating with that more than 20 years have passed since it took place. In addition, the State argued that before the Commission it had proven, by means of documentation, that the notification was performed. Thus, the Court requested the State to provide, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, the documentation submitted in the process before the Inter-American Commission.115 135. On February 4, 2019, the State submitted two documents,116 neither of which constitutes evidence of notification to Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio of the accusation by the Military Prosecutor’s Office of October 17, 1995. The Court points out that both of the documents were issued after the accusation of October 17, 1995, and do not refer to that accusation. 136. Consequently, there is no evidence on file that Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was notified in writing of the act that he was accused of, with a clear, detailed and accurate description of the facts being investigated and the offenses or crimes that he was charged with. Therefore, the Court considers that the State did not fulfill the burden of proof of notification of the accusation of October 17, 1995, to Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio and concludes that the State violated the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, in the military criminal proceedings. C. Conclusion 137. The Court concludes that the State violated the right to prior notification in detail of the charges against him, enshrined in Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, as regards to the ordinary criminal proceedings, military criminal proceedings and military disciplinary proceedings. It also submitted the statement of Mr. Rosadio from December 14, 1994, which is evidently subsequent to the aforementioned statement of September 15, 1994. 114 Cf. Accusation of the Military Prosecutor’s Office against Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio et al. October 17, 1995 (evidence file, folios 102-109). 115 Cf. Request for evidence made by the Court to the State, dated January 30, 2019 (merits file, folios 766 and 767). 116 Cf. Ruling of the President of the Permanent War Council of the Fifth Judicial Military Region of December 4, 1995, (evidence file, folio 3953), whereby he appointed a defense counsel for Mr. Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio; and the brief of defense of December 18, 1995, filed by the Captain of the Army’s Legal Services, Luis Hernández Sangai, ex officio defense counsel of Mr. Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio, December 18, 1995 (evidence file, folios 3955-3956). 113 31