74. Those obligations are intrinsically bound up with the principle of legality, as it is the justification that allows an understanding of how the facts that support the proceeding match or square with the cause invoked. On this point, in De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, the Court stressed the need that in all punitive decisions there be a link between the conduct of which the person is accused and the provision on which the decision is based.87 1.1.3. Analysis of the facts in the case 75. The IACHR notes that Article 103 of the Constitution of Guatemala provides that “[a]ll disputes relative to work are subject to ... the norms corresponding to that jurisdiction and the organs charged with putting them into practice.” In addition, Article 14.j of the Law of the Human Rights Committee of the Congress of the Republic and of the Human Rights Ombudsman empowers the Human Rights Ombudsman to “appoint, reprimand, and remove its staff in accordance with the respective regulations.” 88 76. So it was that on February 7, 1991, the Personnel Regulations of the Human Rights Ombudsman were published in the Official Gazette. Article 1 of the Regulations provides that their purpose is to govern “the labor relations of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman ... and its workers.” Article 5.c states that "the workers of the Ombudsman's Office are guaranteed against dismissal without a just cause.” For its part, Article 74 of the Regulations sets out the causes for dismissal of the institution's workers. 77. In that connection, the commission notes that the human rights ombudsman was competent to carry out the procedure and that the applicable rules established the courses that could give rise to a disciplinary penalty, to wit: (i) when a criminal offense or fault is committed against property to the detriment of the institution, their work colleagues, or a third party in the workplace; (ii) when material damage is caused to equipment, machinery, tools, or other work-related objects; and (iii) in the event of unlawful acts that imply the intention to cause harm to the institution, or of a violation of labor norms that constitute manifest acts of sabotage against the institution. 78. Based on the above, the Commission will analyze the aforementioned guarantees, taking into account the chronological sequence of the proceedings, from the receipt of the document from Mrs. Maldonado's siblings to the conclusion of the administrative procedure. Concerning the violation of the right contained in Articles 8.2.b and 8.2.c of the Convention. 79. The established facts show that following the receipt of the document from her siblings on April 5, 2000, Mrs. Maldonado was notified of the causes contained in Articles 74.4 and 74.15 of the Human Rights Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations. The available information suggests that said notification merely mentioned the relevant provisions and made reference to the communication from her siblings. 80. The Commission finds that, from the outset, this situation impaired Mrs. Maldonado's understanding of the object of the proceeding instituted against her. That is, if in her defense she was supposed to demonstrate that her siblings' allegations were untrue, or if that situation, true or not, might amount to any of the above-cited causes. The Commission finds that the inclusion of precise information about the object of the proceedings and the specific causes that would be considered was essential for Mrs. Maldonado to mount a defense, given that the causes set forth in Articles 74.4 and 74.15 of the Human Rights Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations are markedly different in content. Thus, some concern the commission of criminal offenses, others have to do with unlawful acts, others with harm to property, and still others with acts of sabotage against the institution, etc. Therefore, though Mrs. Maldonado drafted a defense brief, it was extremely limited as she lacked the basic information that Article 8.2.b of the Convention requires. 87 115, par. 84. I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C. No. 88 Annex 23. Law of the Human Rights Committee of the Congress of the Republic and of the Human Rights Ombudsman. Free translation. Available in Spanish at: http://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/libros/4/1842/12.pdf 16