55. The degree of specificity required of a sanction-imposing provision may be distinct from that required by criminal law, due to the nature of the conflicts each is called upon to resolve.52 Nonetheless, it should be foreseeable “either because the punishable conduct is expressly and clearly established, precisely, clearly and previously, by law, or because the law delegates its imposition to the judge or to an infra-legal norm, under objective criteria that limit the scope of discretion.”53 56. As regards the duty to provide an explanation, it translates into a “reasoned justification” that enables the judge to reach a conclusion.54 That guarantee is intrinsically related to the principle of legality, for beginning with the requirement that disciplinary grounds should be established in the legal framework of the State, in keeping with the standards described above, the argument of a ruling allows one to know “what were the facts, reasons, and provisions the authority relied on in reaching its decision.”55 In that sense, it is the reasoning of the sanction-imposing decision that allows one to understand how the facts that were the basis of the proceeding fall within the scope of the grounds invoked. On this point, in the case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, the Court highlighted the need, in every sanction-imposing decision, for a link between the conduct attributed to the person and the provision on which the decision is based. 56 In addition, in the case of López Lone v. Honduras, the Inter-American Court indicated that “when open or indeterminate disciplinary offenses are used, it is fundamental to provide a statement of reasons when applying them, because it is incumbent on the disciplinary court to interpret these norms respecting the principle of legality and observing the greatest rigor when verifying the existence of punishable conduct.”57 57. The Inter-American Court has established that the duty to state reasoning is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to due process. 58 Both the Commission and the Court have indicated that the duty to state reasoning is “a guarantee related to the correct administration of justice, which protects the right of the people to be tried for the reasons established by law and grants credibility to judicial decisions in a democratic society.”59 58. In the instant case the Commission observes that the legal framework of the ratification proceeding did not establish grounds that were duly spelled out so as to enable the alleged victim to understand the conduct being evaluated by the Commission of Judges entrusted with the ratification process. The relevant provisions merely indicated that a member of the Commission of Judges would review the case files under the charge of the Clerk examined to form an idea of his or her work, specify the cases in which legal obligations were breached, and obtain a strict report from the Clerk concerning the same. The legislation did not establish what type of factual situations constituted “breach of legal obligations.” 59. The IACHR also underscores that in the decision not to ratify, issued by the Commission of Judges, it was noted that said conclusion was reached based on two elements: (i) that the Clerk has economic debts; (ii) that she has a business of her own that “absorbed her time.” The Commission observes that the decision lacks adequate reasoning so as to justify why those issues merited not ratifying her in the position, which in practice was tantamount to a dismissal. By their very nature it is apparent that they are not related to the performance of her functions, thus there does not appear to be any correlation between the conduct identified and the sanction imposed. In addition, the Commission underscores that the decision not to ratify certifies that the I/A Court HR, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 257. 53 I/A Court HR, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 259. 54 I/A Court HR, Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 87. 55 IACHR, Report No. 103/13, Case 12,816, Merits, Adán Guillermo López Lone et al., Honduras, para.145. 56 I/A Court HR. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 84. 57 I/A Court HR, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 271. 58 I/A Court HR. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 118. 59 I/A Court HR. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para.118. 52