70. In this regard, the Court has developed the right to be heard protected under Article 8(1) of the Convention, in the general sense of understanding the right of every person to have access to a court or State body responsible for determining their rights and obligations. 77 In this sense, the Court reiterates that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention suppose that victims should have ample possibilities of being heard and acting in their respective proceedings, 78 so that they can make their claims and present evidence, and that these will be fully analyzed in a serious manner by the authorities before a decision is taken on the facts, responsibilities, punishments and reparations. 79 In this specific case, the Court finds that this guarantee meant that a proceeding should be initiated in relation to each of the alleged victims in order to determine whether they had actually participated in the strike, during which their right to a hearing and defense would be guaranteed. 71. With regard to an individual’s right to receive prior and detailed notification of an accusation against him, in accordance with Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention, the Court has established that this means that a defendant must be provided with a full description of the conduct attributed to him, including factual information regarding the charges, as an essential reference document for the defendant to be able to defend himself. Therefore, the defendant has the right to be informed of the facts of which he is accused, described in a clear, detailed and precise manner. 80 In the case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, the Court referred to this guarantee and stated that, to satisfy it “the State must notify the accused not only of the charges against him, that is, the crimes or offenses with which he is charged, but also of the reasons for them, the evidence for such charges and the legal definition of the facts.” 81 72. Furthermore, in accordance with this Court’s jurisprudence, the right to adequate time and means to prepare the defense, enshrined in Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention, requires the State to guarantee the defendant’s access to the case file against him. Similarly, it must respect the adversarial principle, which guarantees the defendant’s involvement in the analysis of the evidence. 82 In addition, the adequate means to prepare the defense includes all the material and evidence used, as well as the exculpatory documents. 83 73. The alleged victims in this case were not afforded a hearing prior to their dismissal, which would have allowed them to know beforehand the conduct of which they were accused and to present exculpatory evidence, in order to effectively exercise their defense. They were merely notified of the Supreme Court’s decision, without being given the opportunity to prove that they 77 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 3, 2020. Series C No. 403, para. 85. 78 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 81, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 90. 79 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 146, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 90. 80 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 67, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 101. 81 Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 28. 82 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 Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 154. 83 Cf. Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 154, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 154. 23