dismissal process. The Court understands that this acknowledgment implies an admission of the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, as well as the violation of the right established in Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Grijalva Bueno, based on: a) the fact that the reports used for Mr. Grijalva’s dismissal involved a military agent and other authorities who formed part of the Council of Senior Officers that decided on his dismissal, in violation of his right to be heard by an impartial authority during the dismissal proceedings; b) the lack of prior and detailed notification of the charges against him, and the lack of adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; c) failure to guarantee the principle of presumption of innocence; d) failure to provide grounds for the dismissal; e) lack of access to an effective remedy to examine the decision to discharge him from the armed forces, and f) failure to implement the ruling of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees which ordered Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s reinstatement in the armed forces and the restitution of his rights, for which reason Mr. Grijalva has not been reinstated and has not received any payment. 86. In this chapter, the Court will examine the alleged violations of judicial guarantees against Mr. Grijalva Bueno in the military criminal proceedings with regard to the right of defense, the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to obtain a properly reasoned judicial decision, within a reasonable time, which have not been recognized by the State. A. Military criminal proceedings A.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the State84 A.1.1. Right to receive prior and detailed notification of the accusation 87. The Commission argued that Mr. Grijalva Bueno i) was not provided with complete and detailed information regarding the accusation against him and its grounds in order to fully exercise his right of defense; ii) he was not notified of the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, and iii) the alleged victim’s statement was not accredited, even though it was taken immediately at the beginning of the investigation. 88. For its part, the State argued that in this case it has been demonstrated that Mr. Grijalva Bueno was heard by a military criminal court; that his participation in the proceedings was guaranteed through the technical defense of his choice; that he was not deprived at any time of his right to a defense; that he was able to submit evidence and challenge evidence against him; that he had access to and knowledge of the judicial proceedings and that he actively participated as a party to the proceedings throughout the trial. It added that the foregoing can be verified from the documentary evidence presented by the State and contained in the case file and from the acknowledgement made by Mr. Grijalva Bueno in his written statement before the Court. 89. The State indicated that during the summary stage of the investigation, the military criminal judge ordered a number of information gathering procedures, including the taking of statements from the defendant Grijalva Bueno and his subordinate personnel, the testimonies of agents of the Intelligence Agency of Puerto Bolívar and of the persons who, according to the record, had participated in one way or another. The Given that the pleadings and motions brief was not admitted, the arguments of the representative of the alleged victim are not included. 84 23