remedy by the competent authority cannot be reduced to a mere formality, but rather it must examine the arguments invoked by the complainant and expressly address them. 64 53. As for the duty to state sufficient grounds, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that it constitutes one of the “due guarantees” referred in Article 8.1 of the Convention. Regarding its content, it indicates that: (...) the grounds are “the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.” The duty to state grounds is a guarantee linked to the proper administration of justice, 65 protecting the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons provided by Law, and giving credibility to the legal decisions adopted in the framework of a democratic society. 66 The Court has underscored that the decisions adopted by national bodies that could affect human rights must be duly justified, because, if not, they would be arbitrary decisions. 67 In such sense, the reasons given for a judgment must show that the arguments by the parties have been duly weighed and that the body of evidence has been analyzed. Moreover, a reasoned decision demonstrates to the parties that they have been heard and, when the decision is subject to appeal, it affords them the possibility to argue against it, and of having such decision reviewed by an appellate body. 68 4. Analysis of the case 54. Taking into account the allegations of the parties, the Commission must decide, first of all, whether in the present case there was a difference in treatment based on the sexual orientation of the alleged victim. If that is the case, the IACHR must then establish if said difference in treatment was objective and reasonable, by applying the above-mentioned judgment of proportionality on the basis of rigorous scrutiny, taking into account that it would involve one of the categories prohibited by Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 55. As for the first item, the Commission observes that there is no controversy about the fact that Sandra Pavez worked as a religious education teacher in the Cardinal Antonio Samore Municipal High School and that, on July 25, 2007, her certificate of suitability was withdrawn by the Diocese of San Bernardo. As indicated in the evidence, the certificate of suitability was required by Decree 924 of 1983 of the Ministry of Education, which governs religious education classes in schools. This regulation granted this authority to the respective religions. Nevertheless, there is no dispute that the post held by Sandra Pavez as a teacher was a public service post. Nor is there any dispute about the fact that the reason for the withdrawal of her certificate of suitability was Sandra Pavez’s sexual orientation and the fact that she had a relationship with a person of her own gender. This is evident from both the contents of the withdrawal itself and the previous incidents with respect to inquiries conducted by the vicar on the alleged victim’s sexual orientation and the warnings that were transmitted to her, including the requirement that she submit to treatment. 56. By virtue of the above, the IACHR deems that it has been sufficiently proven that the withdrawal of the certificate of suitability on July 25, 2007 constituted a difference in treatment, which was based explicitly and exclusively on Sandra Pavez’s sexual orientation. 64 I/A Court H.R. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311. Para. 109. 65 I/A Court H.R. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 77. Quoting. “The European has established this in the Case of Suominen: ‘[t]he Court therefore reiterates that, according to its constant jurisprudence and reflecting a principle relative to the correct administration of justice, the judgments of the courts and tribunals must adequately expose the reasons on which they are based’ (translation by this Court Corte). Cf. Suominen v. Finland, No. 37801/97, § 34, 1 July 2003”. 66 I/A Court H.R. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 77. 67 I/A Court H.R. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 78. 68 I/A Court H.R. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 78.