process.147 In this regard, Article 8 of the Convention establishes the guidelines for due legal process, which is composed of a series of requirements that must be observed in the procedural instances in order to allow the individual to defend his or her rights adequately against any decision of the State that may affect them.148 Also, the Court has indicated that “any State body that exercises functions of a substantially jurisdictional nature has the obligation to adopt decisions that respect the guarantees of due process of law in the terms of Article 8 of the American Convention.”149 In that regard, the Court recalls that, “[i]n any matter, even in labor and administrative matters, the discretionary powers of the Administration has limits that may not be exceeded, one of them being respect for human rights. The conduct of the Administration must be regulated and it may not invoke public order to reduce the guarantees of its subjects discretionally.”150 116. Regarding this, in the instant case the Court finds that Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón’s appointment was annulled based on “comments” the content and nature of which were never specified (supra paras. 81 and 82). Since the content of those comments is not known, and based on the arguments of the parties, the Court considers that, in the instant case, there are insufficient elements to allow it to conclude that the decision annulling the appointment of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón was of a sanctioning nature. Nevertheless, the Court observes, based on the response to the different remedies filed against the removal decision, that the action of the Judicial Commission was based on its authority to remove provisional and temporary judges in a discretionary manner (supra paras. 84 and 85), so that it will now analyze whether this entailed a violation of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón’s judicial guarantees. 117. On this issue, the Court observes that the temporary appointment of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón was not limited to a specific term or resolutive condition (supra para. 78). Thus, taking into account that the Court has reiterated that provisional and temporary judges must have a certain degree of stability in their posts, because their provisional status is not the same as their being freely removable (supra para. 105), the alleged victim could legitimately expect to remain in her post until the competitive examinations established in the Constitution were conducted. This means that the removal of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón could only be admissible in the context of a disciplinary procedure or by a duly-founded administrative decision. Consequently, the decision annulling Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón’s appointment had to be founded. 118. Regarding this obligation to provide the grounds for decisions that affect the stability of judges in their post, the Court reiterates its case law to the effect that the grounds “are the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.”151 The obligation to found decisions is a guarantee 147 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 139, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 142. 148 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra note 121, para. 69, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 147, para. 142. See also Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27. 149 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 71, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 147, para. 141. 150 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 126, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 147, para. 141. 151 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 121, para. 77, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 147, para. 208 37