emanates from Article 8(1) of the Convention, linked to the correct administration of justice, because it protects the right of the individual to be tried for the reasons established by law and gives credibility to legal decisions in a democratic society.91 80. The reasoning shows the parties that they have been heard and, in those cases in which the decision can be appealed, provides the grounds for criticizing the decision and achieving a fresh examination before higher instances. Consequently, the reasons for a ruling and for certain administrative acts should reveal the facts, grounds and laws on which the authority based itself to take its decision; thereby ruling out any indication of arbitrariness.92 81. In this regard, recently, in the case of Casa Nina v. Peru, this Court established that a dismissal based on service needs pointed to an indeterminate legal concept, “in other words, relating to an aspect of the reality the limits of which were not clearly established in its text”93 and that, therefore, its application should have responded to circumstances that were clearly emphasized by the authority, which meant making a reasoned analysis in the specific case. 82. Accordingly, the Court must establish whether the decision imposing the sanction of dismissal on Mr. Cordero Bernal was adequately substantiated. To this end, it is necessary to decide whether the arguments made by the National Council of the Judiciary provided content to the norm that was applied. Also, given that the case related to the dismissal of a judge, it is necessary to determine whether the decision took into account the effects that the conduct examined could have on the exercise of the judicial function, by an adequate reasoning and interpretation, as well as the seriousness of the conduct and proportionality of the sanction.94 83. The Court finds that, in the context of the disciplinary proceeding instituted against Mr. Cordero Bernal, one report and two decisions were issued that described the factual and legal grounds that substantiated the proposal and subsequent decision of dismissal. These were the investigation report of July 21, 1995, signed by Inés Villa Bonilla, OCMA investigator; the OCMA decision of August 3, 1995, containing the investigation report, and the proposal of dismissal, and the decision of the National Council of the Judiciary of August 14, 1996, dismissing Mr. Cordero Bernal. These three documents all indicate: (i) that the appointment of Mr. Cordero Bernal to the First Criminal Court of Huánuco was irregular, and (ii) that Mr. Cordero Bernal’s decision to grant unconditional release to two defendants did not take into account the particular circumstances of the case or an adequate assessment of the evidence.95 The alleged irregularities in Mr. Cordero’s appointment provided the grounds for disciplinary proceedings filed against other persons; while the irregularities related to the decision to grant April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 268, and Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru, supra, para. 154. Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 77, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 89. 91 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 Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 89. 92 93 Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 93. Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 120, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 267. 94 That decision was categorized as premature by the authorities in charge of the investigation. This was because the defendants had entered Peruvian air space without authorization, which entailed the presumed perpetration of an offense that had not been investigated; also, because they had justified their presence by facts that could signify the perpetration of other offenses that had not been investigated either. In addition, Mr. Cordero Bernal ordered unconditional release only eleven days after this had been requested, before the expiry of the ordinary four-month time frame for an investigation and before the investigation procedures aimed at verifying the identity of the defendants had been completed. Cf. National Council of the Judiciary. Decision No. 008-96-PCNM of August 14, 1996 (evidence file, folios 9 to 13). 95 21