this regard. Therefore, the Court finds that Mrs. Moya Solís was unable to know the reasons that led to the decision of non-ratification, recorded in the Minutes and in the Order, which not only impacted her right to defense (supra para. 82), but also violated the right to reasoned decisions referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention. 86. Notwithstanding the above, even in the event that Mrs. Moya Solís had been informed in a timely manner of the minutes of the session in which her non-ratification was decided and the order adopting that decision, these documents do not show adequate motivation. Thus, the Minutes of the Plenary Chamber in which the non-ratification was decided refers to the debts and businesses of Mrs. Moya Solís, but does not state why this is related to the breach of her professional obligations or to a possible conflict of interest. In any case, the Court notes that having personal debts or businesses, provided that these do not imply a conflict of interest defined in the law, is not a reason to dismiss a person from their position. This Court also finds that the Order of September 13, 1982, adopting the decision of non-ratification, includes as grounds matters other than those discussed at the Plenary Meeting in which non-ratification was decided. However, there is no explanation in the record for this inconsistency. Furthermore, the decision not to ratify Mrs. Moya Solís was adopted in the Plenary Chamber of the Labor and Labor Communities Court and was the result of a divided vote that counted with five votes in favor and five against66, without explanation as to why the tie was resolved in favor of non-ratification. Based on the above, the Court finds that the decision of non-ratification was not adequately reasoned and was arbitrary. 87. Additionally, the Court notes that the record of the Plenary Chamber and the Order of nonratification do not give an account of the grounds on which the non-ratification was decided. This happened because these grounds were not contained in any norm, which must be analyzed in light of the principle of legality. Thus, Article 9 of the American Convention establishes that “[n] o one can be sentenced for actions or omissions that were not criminal according to the applicable law at the time they were committed” and that it is not possible “to impose a more serious penalty than that applicable at the time of the commission of the crime”. This Court has interpreted that these mandates are applicable not only to the criminal sphere, but that their scope extends to administrative sanctioning matters.67 88. Regarding this matter, it must be taken into account that this Court has already determined that when a process of evaluation of public officers establishes the non-ratification of a person's position, the process is materially punitive (supra para. 69). However, administrative sanctions are, like criminal sanctions, an expression of the punitive power of the State and can have a similar nature, since they can imply the impairment, deprivation or alteration of people’s rights. Therefore, in a democratic system it is necessary to take extreme precautions so that the filing of this type of sanctions is done with strict respect for people’s rights and following careful verification of the existence of conduct contrary to the law. In this sense, it is essential that the sanctioning norm exists and is known or could be, prior to occurrence of the action or omission that contravenes it and that it is intended to sanction.68 On this matter, the witness Jaime Gómez Valverde, proposed by the State, indicated that “if the Minutes of the Session dated September 10, 1982 (referred to in the Resolution issued by the Labor Court) they cast 10 votes, this was because the Full Chamber of the Labor and Labor Communities Court was made up of 10 Members (3 members for three Labor Courts, 1 President of the Jurisdiction) ”(evidence file, folio 998) 66 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 106, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 129. 67 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá, supra, para. 106, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez Vs. Guatemala, supra, para. 89 68 23