using procedures that guarantee respect for due process and, in particular, the rights to a hearing, defense, rebuttal and legal remedies, as appropriate.”106 111. Bearing in mind the foregoing considerations, the Court will now examine: (1) the right to prior notification in detail of the charges and adequate time and means for defense, and (2) the right to an impartial disciplinary authority and the right to judicial protection. 112. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to presumption of innocence and to be assisted by legal counsel, and the alleged failure to provide the reasons for the decision, the Court notes that the representatives did not submit specific arguments or provide information that would allow this Court to determine a violation of those rights in this case. Consequently, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient evidence to rule on the violation of those rights.107 B.1. Right to prior notification in detail of the charges and adequate time and means for defense 113. The right to prior notification in detail of the charges in criminal matters means that it is necessary to have a specific description of the conduct attributed to the defendant that includes the factual information regarding the charges, and this constitutes an essential reference document for the defendant to be able to defend himself and for the judge to consider in his decision. Therefore, the defendant has the right to know, described in a clear, detailed and precise manner, the facts of which he is accused. 108 As part of the minimum guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the Convention, the right to prior and detailed notification of the charges applies in both criminal matters and in the other matters indicated in Article 8(1) of the Convention, even though the information required in the other matters may be less and of another type.109 That said, in the case of disciplinary proceedings that may result in a sanction, the scope of this guarantee can be understood in different ways but, in any case, means that the person to be disciplined must be informed of the conducts of which he is accused that have violated the disciplinary regime.110 114. The Court notes that in a letter of January 13, 2005, the Appellate Court of La Serena asked Judge Urrutia Laubreaux to provide, within five days, a “report on the reasons he had to send the Supreme Court a copy of his final paper.” 111 On January 18, 2005, the presumed victim sent the requested report indicating that “the reasons that the undersigned judge had were to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that he had completed the course and the high Iberoamerican Summit of Presidents of Supreme Courts and Tribunals of Justice. Statute of the Iberoamerican Judge, supra, article 20. 106 Cf. inter alia, Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 325; Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 86; Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 169; Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 280; Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019. Series C No. 392, paras. 96 and 97, and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUBSUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, para. 203. 107 Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 67, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 80. 108 109 80. 110 80. 111 Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. Letter of the President of the Appellate Court of La Serena of January 13, 2005 (evidence file, folio 28). 29