96. The Court considers that the procedural guarantees contemplated in Article 8 of the American Convention, including some of those set forth in Article 8(2), are part of the list of basic guarantees that should be respected within the framework of the military criminal proceedings conducted against the alleged victim in order to adopt a decision that is not arbitrary and is in keeping with due process.87 Consequently, the aforementioned guarantees must be applied mutatis mutandis to the military criminal procedure, as the Court has done in previous cases, taking into account its punitive legal nature and the consequences it entailed.88 97. The Court observes that the process that concluded with the imposition of a sentence against Mr. Grijalva Bueno was decided by officials who were hierarchically subordinate to the Executive Branch and, therefore, were not independent judges. However, the Court will not elaborate on this consideration owing to the procedural irregularities that disqualify the process and the fact that the State has repealed the legislation that established these powers.89 98. The Court emphasizes that the military proceeding against Mr. Grijalva was initiated by order of the hierarchy of the Ecuadorian Navy. Thus, it forms part of the actions taken by the military command against the alleged victim and, in addition, it is based on facts alleged in the disciplinary process of dismissal, in violation of the American Convention, as the State has admitted in its acknowledgement of responsibility. These elements are essential for the analysis that follows below. 99. Based on the arguments put forward by the Commission and the State, the Court will now analyze the alleged violation of rights in the following order: 1) Right to obtain prior and detailed notification of the accusation; 2) Right to examine witnesses; 3) Scope of the presumption of innocence and the duty to state the reasons for a decision; 4) Reasonable time limit for the proceedings, and 5) Conclusion. A.2.1. Right to prior and detailed notification of the accusation 100. The right to defense is a central component of due process that requires the State to treat the individual at all times as a true subject of the process, in the broadest sense of this concept, and not simply as the object thereof. The right to a defense must necessarily be exercised from the moment a person is identified as a possible perpetrator or participant in an punishable act and only ends when the process is completed, including - if applicable - the stage of execution of the sentence.90 The right Cf. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 3, 2013. Series C No. 311, para. 79, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 103. 88 Cf. Case of Rosadio Villacencio v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 388, para. 126. 89 The Court has indicated that all State bodies that exercise functions which are materially jurisdictional have the duty to adopt fair decisions based on full respect for the guarantees of due process as enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention. Furthermore, as regards the organic structure and composition of military courts, the Court has considered that they lack independence and impartiality since “they are made up of active-duty military members who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked officers through the chain of command, that their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to exercise judicial functions, that they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed, and that they have not received the legal education required to sit as judges or serve as prosecutors.” Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 155, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, paras. 146 and 149. 90 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 29, and Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 153. 87 26