information regarding purported unlawful conduct on the part of Mrs. Maldonado, which the Ombudsman took to tarnish the institution's image. 69. As was noted, the punitive nature of the procedure indicates that the penalizing authority of the state was engaged, thus analogously expanding the applicable guarantees to include those of criminal due process set down in Article 8.2 of the Convention. Particularly important are the rights to a hearing, to know the grounds for the accusation, to have adequate means to prepare a defense, to be presumed innocent, and the possibility of appeal. In addition, it is applicable the principle of legality contained in Article 9 of the American Convention. Indeed, the Court has held that in cases such as these a careful verification of whether or not there was unlawful conduct is essential, in keeping with the principle of legality.79 70. As to the right of presumption of innocence, the Inter-American Court has held that this right implies that the defendant does not have to prove that he has not committed the offense of which he is accused, because the onus probandi is on those who have made the accusation. 80 Hence, irrefutable demonstration of guilt is an essential requirement for punishment, so the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor and not the accused.81 71. As for the rights enshrined in Article 8.2.b, both the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have held that this provision “orders that the competent judicial authorities notify the accused of the charges presented against him, their reasons, and the crimes or offenses he is charged with.” 82 72. As regards the right of defense, the Commission recalls that this implies that anyone on trial, including in an administrative proceeding, will be able to defend their interests or rights effectively and on “equal procedural terms ... and be fully informed of the charges against them,” 83 so that anyone subject to the punitive authority of the State may answer the charges with all the necessary information. 73. With respect to the right to sufficient justification, the Court regards it as “a guarantee related to the correct administration of justice, which protects the right of the people to be tried for the reasons established by law and grants credibility to judicial decisions in a democratic society.”84 According to the Inter-American Court, disciplinary decisions adopted by administrative authorities must “indicate the violation precisely and ... submit arguments that allow it to be concluded that the comments provide sufficient grounds to justify removing a [civil servant] from a post.” 85 Furthermore, the requirement to provide adequate justification is extremely significant because the purpose of disciplinary oversight is to assess the conduct, suitability and performance of civil servant and, therefore, it is precisely in the justification that the seriousness of the conduct and the proportionality of the sanction are analyzed. 86 79 I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C. No. 72, 80 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C. No. 111, par. 154. 81 I/A Court H.R., Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C. No. 220, par. 182. par. 106. I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C. No. 141, par. 149; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C. No. 135, par. 225; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C. No. 129, par. 118; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C. No. 114, par. 187. Also, par. 76. 82 83 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A, No. 18, par. 117. 84 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C. No. 227, par. 118. 85 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C. No. 227, par. 120. 86 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C. No. 227, par. 120. 15