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.152 For this reason, decisions made by domestic bodies that can affect human rights must be duly founded; otherwise they would be arbitrary decisions.153 In this regard, the considerations of a ruling and certain administrative decisions must reveal the facts, grounds and laws on which the authority based itself to make its decision in order to eliminate any sign of arbitrariness.154 Furthermore, the justification demonstrates to the parties that they have been heard and, in those cases where the decision can be appealed, allows them to contest the decision and to obtain another examination of the matter before a higher court.155 Based on the foregoing, the obligation to provide the grounds for a decision is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to due process. 119. Venezuela’s domestic law has also established the obligation to found administrative decisions. In this regard, the Organic Law of Venezuelan Administrative Procedure establishes the following: Article 9. Administrative decisions of a private nature must be founded, with the exception of those that relate to formalities, or unless there is a specific legal provision. To this end, they must refer to the facts and the legal grounds for the decision. Article 12. Even when a legal or regulatory provision leaves some measure or decision to the discretion of the competent authority, the said measure or decision must be duly proportionate and adapted to the factual presumption and the purpose of the law, and comply with the necessary procedures, requirements and formalities for its validity and effectiveness.”156 120. Taking into account the scope of the obligation to provide grounds in both international and domestic law, as well as the guarantees of judicial independence that must be in effect in order to sanction or to remove a judge (supra paras. 98 to 100), the Court considers that the authority to annul the appointment of judges based on “comments” must be minimally founded and regulated, at least as regards specifying the facts that support those comments, and that the respective grounds are not of a disciplinary or sanctioning nature. If a disciplinary sanction is involved, then, in addition to the jurisdiction of the Restructuring and Operation Commission being involved (supra para. 59), the justification requirement would be even greater, because the purpose of disciplinary oversight is to assess the conduct, suitability and performance of the judge as a public official and, therefore, to 152 Cf. 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. 153 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, paras. 152 and 153; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 153, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 147, para. 139. In addition, the European Court has indicated that judges should indicate with sufficient clarity the reasons base don which they take their decisions. Cf. ECHR, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, para. 23. 154 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 Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 121, para. 78. 155 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 121, para. 78. For its part, the Human Rights Committee has considered that “the absence of a reasoned judgment of the court of appeal is likely to prevent the author from successfully arguing his petition before” a higher court, thus preventing him from making use of an additional remedy. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Hamilton v. Jamaica, Communication No. 333/1988, CCPR/C/50/D/333/1988, 23 March 1994. 156 Brief answering the observations made by the Venezuelan State of October 12, 2005 (file of attachments to the application, volume II, folios 545 and 546) 38