arbitrariness. 131. 138. In this case, the Court recalls that Jorge Cuya entered the judicial profession in 1994 and held different positions and, in particular, on November 21, 1994, he was appointed Judge of the Third Specialized Civil Court of the Northern Cone; Walter Valenzuela, entered the judicial profession, effectively, in 1985 and held various positions, and in particular, on October 6, 1994, he was appointed Specialized Civil Judge of the Judicial District of Lima; and Jean Díaz and Marta Rodríguez were appointed on May 24, 1989 and on May 6, 1987, respectively, Deputy Provincial Prosecutors of the Huancayo Provincial Combined Prosecutor's Office of the Junín Judicial District. The alleged victims were summoned by the CNM and at the end of the process, the CNM issued the non-ratification resolutions, which are not individualized, nor do they have the proper substantiation, canceling their appointment and the corresponding titles: a) Resolution No. 500-2002-CNM of November 20, 2002, in which Mr. Cuya Lavy was not ratified as judge, in the operative part established “One. - Not ratify in their positions the following magistrates of the Judiciary and prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service”. […] "Two. - Cancel the titles of appointments issued in favor of the non-ratified judges and prosecutor, mentioned in the previous article”. 132 b) Resolution No. 095-2001 of July 13, 2001, in which Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse were not ratified in their positions as prosecutors, in the operative part established “One.- To render without effect the appointments, canceling the titles issued to the judges and prosecutors mentioned below, for not having been ratified in their positions”. 133 c) Resolution No. 415-2002 - CNM of August 28, 2002, in which Mr. Valenzuela Cerna was not ratified in his position as judge, in the operative part established: “One.- Not ratify the following magistrates in their positions”[…]“ Two.- Cancel the titles of appointment issued in favor of the Members and Prosecutors that have not been ratified.” 134 139. During the proceedings before the Commission, the State admitted that the evaluation processes “[…] had as a characteristic that non-substantiated resolutions were issued […]”. 135 The foregoing was reiterated by the State in its answer to the Court, referring to the right to due substantive reasoning, Peru admitted that the 1993 Constitution did not incorporate as a requirement the substantiation of resolutions issued by the CNM, regarding the processes of evaluation and ratification. In addition, it argued that the Constitutional Court also adopted this position repeatedly in its case law at the time and specified that the CNM's decision was produced through a decision of conscience based on certain criteria. 140. From the foregoing, it can be inferred that effectively under these criteria the nonratification decisions were issued against the alleged victims, where the regulation did not require the CNM to provide reasons for its decisions. It is evident that in this case, the non-ratification decisions issued by the CNM regarding the alleged victims did not comply with the duty to substantiate the decisions, which constitutes a violation of the due guarantees prescribed by Article 8(1) of the Convention. 141. Furthermore, the representatives of the alleged victims and the Commission argued that the grounds for knowing the conduct to be evaluated by the CNM had not been defined nor which conduct could be considered as serious offenses that would lead to non-ratification, which in his opinion would constitute a violation of the principle of legality. Article 9 of the American Convention 131 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 122, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 80. 132 Cf. Resolution N° 500-2002-CNM, issued by the National Council of the Judiciary, of November 20, 2002, supra. 133 134 135 Cf. Resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary No. 095-2001-CNM, of July 13, 2001, supra. Cf. Resolution Nº 415-2002-CNM of the National Council of the Judiciary, of August 28, 2002, supra. Cf. Report 199-2012 JUS/PPES of the State of September 6, 2012, (evidence file, fs. 3167 to 3180). 36