46 was not carried out diligently. Moreover, even though the representatives mentioned to the Court a series of additional measures that could have been adopted during the investigation, such measures were not requested to the investigating authority neither in the initial report nor in subsequent extensions thereof. In his challenge to Prosecutor’s Opinion No. 472 of September 22, 1999, Mr. Tristán Donoso only dwelt in general on the fact that certain measures had not been implemented; e.g. the confrontation between Inspector Hurtado and Clerk Miranda, regarding the two contradictory versions about the recorded cassette. Other items of evidence were requested to the Procuraduría de la Administración [Office of the Solicitor for the Administration] and duly gathered by the latter (supra paras. 147 and 148). 150. This Court finds, moreover, that despite the fact that there were contradictions between the statements by Inspector Hurtado and by Mr. Adel Zayed and other evidence gathered by the Procuraduría de la Administración [Office of the Solicitor for the Administration], regarding the source of the recording, such contradictions did not directly impact on the objective of establishing whether the former Attorney General was responsible or not. There were other pieces of evidence on the record that showed, as held by the Supreme Court, that the former Attorney General did not perform the wiretapping in question. 151. Based on all of the foregoing, the Court finds that, as regards the obligation to diligently investigate the events reported by Mr. Tristán Donoso, the State did not violate Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof. 1. ii) Grounds for the decision by the Corte Suprema de Justicia de Panamá [Panamá Supreme Court of Justice] 152. As to the allegations of the representatives in the sense that the judgment about the disclosure of the telephone conversations lacked sufficient grounds, the Court has stated that such grounds are “the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.”134 The duty to provide the grounds for a Court decision is a guarantee related to the adequate administration of justice, which protects the right of citizens to be judged for the reasons expressly set forth by law and grants credibility to legal decisions in the framework of a democratic society.135 153. The Court has underscored that the decisions by domestic organs which might affect human rights and are not duly grounded are arbitrary.136 In this sense, the reasoning of a Court decision should show that the allegations made by the parties have been taken into account and that the body of evidence has been considered. Likewise, such reasoning shows the parties they have been heard and, in those cases 134 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 ApitzBarbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 77. 135 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) supra note 134, para. 77. 136 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 10, para. 152; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 134, para. 107; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) supra note 134, para. 78.