to adopt them with full respect for the guarantees of due legal process.65 The European Court of Human Rights has also pronounced in favor of applying the guarantees of due process to disciplinary administrative proceedings.66 83. In this regard, the Court has discussed the right to be heard being protected under Article 8(1) of the Convention, in the general sense of understanding the right of every person to have access to a court or State body responsible for determining their rights and obligations.67 In terms of this right, the Court has repeatedly found the victims should have extensive possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings,68 so that they can present their claims and evidence, which can then by fully and seriously analyzed by the authorities, to clearly establish the facts and the punishment.69 84. Meanwhile, Article 8(2) of the Convention provides for the minimum guarantees that must be ensured by the States based on due process.70 In its case law, the Court has ruled on the scope of this article and has established that it is not limited to criminal proceedings, but has been extended, where pertinent, to administrative processes before State authorities and to judicial proceedings of a non-criminal nature in the constitutional, administrative and labor areas.71 Similarly, it has also ruled that, both in these as in other types of subject matter areas, “the individual also has the overall right to the due process applicable in criminal matters."72 This implies that the guarantees of Article 8(2) of the Convention are not limited to criminal proceedings, but are also applicable to punitive proceedings. Therefore, in each case it is necessary to determine the minimum guarantees that apply to a given non-criminal punitive process, according to its nature and scope.73 85. When determining the scope of the guarantees included in Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention, on the right to prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him, the Court has provided that this right implies making a material description of the factual data included in the charges, which is the indispensable reference for the exercise of the defense of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has the right to know, through a clear, Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001, para. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 65. 66 Cf., inter alia, ECHR, Di Giovanni v. Italy, No. 51160/06. Judgment of July 9, 2013, paras. 37, and ECHR, Case of Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey, No. 76521/12. Judgment of March 9, 2021, para. 96. 67 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 70. 68 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 81, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 70. 69 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 146, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 70. 70 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama,supra, para. 137, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 66. 71 Cf.,inter alia, Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra;Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218; Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268; Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311; Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 66. 72 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 70, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 66. 73 Cf. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala,supra, para. 75, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 66. 65