organ of the State responsible for determining his rights and obligations.120 The Court has recognized that this right entails two aspects: on the one hand, a formal and procedural aspect that ensures access to the competent body to determine the right that is claimed, respecting due procedural guarantees (such as the presentation of arguments and evidence). On the other hand, this right includes a material aspect of protection which means that the State must guarantee that the decision resulting from the proceedings satisfies its original purpose. 121 147. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings involved an investigation stage before the Inspectorate of the Leoncio Prado Detachment, a stage before the Investigative Council for Junior Officers, and a last stage before the Army General Command, which decided to retire Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio. 148. In the second stage before the Investigative Council, a hearing was held without the alleged victim being present due to his detention as per the detention order in the ordinary jurisdiction.122 In this regard, the Court confirms that Article 61 of the Law on the Military Status of Army, Navy and Air Force Officers requires that for all officers subject to proceedings to determine their retirement as a disciplinary measure, a prior summons, a hearing and assessment of evidence by the Investigative Council are required. 123 149. In this regard, the State claimed that said law was not applicable due to the amendment of Article 14 of the Regulations of the Investigative Councils for Army officers set forth in Supreme Decree 049 of 1991, which modified Supreme Decree 09 of 1985. This amendment excluded the right to a hearing in cases of common crimes, unrelated to the service, for which in the substantiation a definitive detention order or a conviction with a penalty of deprivation of liberty were issued. 124 The foregoing was challenged by the representative, considering that said law was not published in the “El Peruano” Official Newspaper. The Court asked the State to provide a copy of that publication;125 however, it was not provided.126 123F Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008, para. 72, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 228. 121 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008, para. 72; Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011, para. 120-122. 122 Cf. Minutes of the Investigative Council of Junior Officers, Session No. 007-95 of February 7, 1995 (evidence file, folio 55). 123 Cf. Law on the Military Status of Army, Navy and Air Force Officers of November 8, 1991 (evidence file, folio 3916). The article reads: “Article 61.- Retirement as a disciplinary measure will be applicable in cases of serious offenses against the service and/or when the officer’s misconduct gravely affects the honor, decorum and military duties, independently of the potential criminal sanction, if the fact or facts that the officer is accused of are defined as crimes by law, with the prior recommendation of the Investigative Council. The Investigative Council must previously summon the officer, hold a hearing and assess the evidence for the defense; having completed those steps, it shall issue the respective ruling.” The Court requested the parties to provide a copy of the Law as evidence to facilitate adjudication. The representative and the State presented the same law quoted herein. 124 Cf. Supreme Decree 09 of October 22, 1985, modified by Supreme Decree 049 of September 1991 (evidence file, folio 67). At the time of the facts, the article read as follows: “Article 14.- Personnel investigated for disciplinary measures and/or personal offenses must be heard and the evidence for the defense must be examined; he must present his situation orally and answer any questions made by the members of the Council, which he may confirm in writing after leaving the chamber. The following text was added by DS N°049 DE/EP, September 26, 1991.- The previous provision is not applicable if the officer is involved in a common crime, unrelated to the service, for which in the investigation or criminal judicial proceedings a definitive detention order or conviction with a penalty of deprivation of liberty was issued, which prevents him from attending by his own means.” 125 Cf. Request for evidence made by the Court to the State, dated January 30, 2019 (merits file, folios 754 and 755). 126 Cf. Report No. 046-2019-JUS/CDJE-PPES related to the Case of Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru [or Brief submitted by the State of Peru] of February 4, 2019 (merits file, folios 762-767); and Annexes to Report No. 046-2019JUS/CDJE-PPES related to the Case of Jorge Rosadio Villavicencio vs. Peru [or Brief submitted by the State of Peru] dated February 4, 2019 (evidence file, folios 3921-3929). 120 34