externalization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached”59 and that the duty to give reasons for the decisions is a guarantee that follows from Article 8(1) of the Convention, linked to the correct administration of justice, as it protects the right of citizens to be judged for reasons provided for in law and gives credibility to legal decisions in a democratic society.60 Therefore, decisions adopted by internal bodies that may affect human rights must be duly substantiated, otherwise they become arbitrary decisions.61 84. Thus, the statement of reasons shows the parties that they have been heard and, in those cases in which the decisions can be appealed, provides them with the possibility of criticizing the resolution and obtaining a new examination before higher courts.62 In accordance with the above, the rationale of a ruling and of certain administrative acts must communicate the facts, motives and norms on which the authority based its decision, in order to rule out any indication of arbitrariness.63 85. On this matter there are two documents in the case file, the first, a certified copy of the Minutes of the Plenary Chamber of September 10, 1982, date on which Mrs. Moya Solís’ case was discussed (supra para. 44) and, the second, Order No. 0015-82-TT of September 13, 1982, in which it was decided not to ratify Mrs. Moya Solís. The latter indicates that deficiencies were found in the processing of the files under her charge, that the report issued by the Judge in charge of the Tenth Court was not favorable, that Mrs. Moya Solís had been previously sanctioned, and that the charges presented were not disproved.64 Mrs. Moya Solís argued during the processing of this matter that she was not notified of the Minutes of the Plenary Chamber in a timely manner and that she was never made aware of the decision of non-ratification. The State affirmed, for its part, that the proof that the Order had been notified is the presumed victim’s activation of the remedies available to her.65 However, from the mere filing of remedies it does not appear that Mrs. Moya Solís was notified of Order No. 0015-82-TT. In addition, it was up to the State to prove that it notified the content of the Order in a timely manner, despite this, it did not provide evidence in Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107. 60 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Contentious Administrative Proceedings”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 77, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 89. 59 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 and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 89. 61 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Contentious Administrative Proceedings”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 78 and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 89. 62 63 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 122 and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 89. “That, in the visit made by the Ratifications Commission of this Court to the Clerk Mrs. Moya Solís de Rocha, reporting deficiencies in the processing of the files under her charge, such as N ° 1152-82, 1025-81, 3084 -81, 312181, 1040-81, 3120-81 and 3117-81; That the report issued by the Judge in charge of the Tenth Court regarding said Clerk, has not been favorable; That, having imposed a disciplinary penalty of warning by the court, in the Resolution of the case No. 2568-81, she filed her appeal for reconsideration, in writing addressed to the President of the Chamber, presenting it to the Panel of Parties and signed by the sponsoring lawyer , which was resolved by the Presidency, declaring it inadmissible, severely calling attention to the Clerk Moya Solís de Rocha; That, during the exercise of the position, the aforementioned Clerk has been admonished; That the charges set forth in the preceding considerations have not been disproved by the Clerk; With the Report issued by the Ratifications Commission, agreed in the Extraordinary Session of the Full Chamber, dated September 10, 1982, and in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 23369, IT IS RESOLVED: SOLE ARTICLE: NOT RATIFY Mrs. NORKA NMZ SOLIS DE ROCHA in the position of Secretary of the Tenth Private Court of Labor and Labor Communities”. Cf. Resolution No. 0015-82-TT of September 13, 1982 (evidence file, folio 756). 64 In this regard, the witness Jaime Gómez Valverde, proposed by the State, stated that “the facts show that Mrs. Norka Moya Sólis would have been notified in writing with the act of non-ratification, because, with the knowledge of her non-ratification, she formulated the planned appeal for review in Supreme Decree 003-82-JUS, thus exercising her right to defense and to double appeal ”(Evidence file, folio 1002). 65 22