establishes that "[n]o one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed" and that "A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed." This Court has interpreted that these mandates are applicable not only to the criminal sphere, but that their scope extends to administrative sanctioning matters. 136 142. In relation to the scope of this principle in the evaluation processes of judicial officials, the Court recently indicated in the case of Moya Solís v. Peru that: […] However, the Court finds that, in the case of processes of evaluation or ratification of public officers, the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made implies that the persons evaluated have precise knowledge of the general evaluation criteria used by the competent authority to determine their tenure in office. The above implies the ability to establish whether the breach identified by the authority is of such magnitude that it may lead to their non-ratification, which is also essential for the exercise of the right to defense. 137 143. In this regard, Article 30 of the Organic Law of the CNM referred to Article 21 of the same law, indicating that the CNM “evaluates the conduct and suitability in the performance of the position, considering the jurisdictional output, merits, reports of the Bar Associations and Societies, information accumulated on his conduct, granting a personal interview in each case” (supra para. 70). In view of this legal provision, the Permanent Commission for the Evaluation and Ratification of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service of the CNM (hereinafter “Permanent Commission of the CNM”) prepared the parameters of evaluation and ratification of the judges and prosecutors. In addition, it should be noted that the regulations approved by Resolution No. 043-2000-CNM were applied to Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez, and the regulations approved by Resolution No. 241-2002-CNM were applied to Messrs. Cuya and Valenzuela. 144. The second article of each one of the evaluation and ratification regulations indicated that, by means of a sworn statement, those summoned had to report on: their sanctions, if they had been prosecuted for being charged with criminal, civil or disciplinary responsibility, indicating, if applicable, the sanction applied; date of entry to social and sports clubs; if they were related by consanguinity, by affinity or by marriage with workers or officials working in the Judiciary, the Public Prosecution Service, as well as other related bodies in the field of influence; and if they possessed physical and mental aptitude (supra para. 76). Article three of each of the regulations indicated the criteria to be evaluated, such as attendance and punctuality at the workplace; number of licenses granted, as well as unannounced or unwarranted absences; absences from the place where the position is held; jurisdictional output; List of judges and prosecutors who are in charge of criminal proceedings with expired terms and the number of each, as well as those who have pending cases in their Office (supra para. 75). In addition, in the case of judges and prosecutors who have studied at the Academy of the judiciary, it will send the Permanent Commission of the CNM information on the courses and grades obtained by the judges and prosecutors evaluated. 138 145. Similarly, in accordance with article four of the regulations, the CNM Standing Committee could request documentation and information related to banking or tax by taking the pertinent steps in accordance with the regulations provided for that purpose. In addition, if it is required to analyze the equity growth of those evaluated, said commission could be advised by specialists, according to article nine of each of the regulations. 139 136 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 106, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 87. 137 Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 71. 138 Cf. Regulations for the evaluation and ratification procedure of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution, Resolution 043-2000-CNM y Resolution No. 241-2002-CNM, article 3, supra. 139 Cf. Regulations for the evaluation and ratification procedure of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution, Resolution 043-2000-CNM y Resolution No. 241-2002-CNM, Articles 4 and 9, supra. 37