failures or of the seriousness of the irregularities in subsequent appeals. Therefore, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court considers that it was unnecessary for there to be an independent procedural stage, in which Mr. López Mendoza could have had the opportunity to present arguments or evidence to satisfy his right to defense against the possible imposition of additional sanctions. 141. Concerning the requirement that there be cause established by the Comptroller, the Court reiterates that the cause is "the reasoned justification that permits a conclusion to be made.” 236 The obligation to provide cause in the resolutions is a guarantee associated with the proper administration of justice, which protects the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons that the law provides, and grants credibility to the legal decisions within the framework of a democratic society. 237 Therefore, decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect human rights should be properly grounded, otherwise they would be arbitrary decisions.238 In this sense, the argumentation of a ruling and of certain administrative actions should allow one to know what the facts, reasons and regulations are on which it bases the decision-making authority, to therefore rule out any hint of arbitrariness. 239 Moreover, it must also show that it has duly taken into account the arguments of the parties and that the evidence has been analyzed. Therefore, the duty of cause is one of the "due guarantees" included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to due process. 142. Venezuelan domestic law also recognizes the obligation to establish cause for administrative actions. In this regard, the Venezuelan Organic Law of Administrative Procedures (infra para. 201) states: Article 9.- The administrative actions of a particular nature must be motivated, with the exception of those of simple processing or unless the law expressly provided for this exception. They must refer to the facts and legal basis for the action. Article 12 .- Even when a legal or regulatory provision leaves a measure or action to the judgment of a competent authority, such measure or action shall maintain due proportionality and suitability with the alleged facts and the purposes of the regulation, and satisfy the processing measures, requirements, and formalities for its validity and effectiveness.” 143. In this case, the Court noted that through Resolution No. 01-00-000206 (supra para. 58), the Comptroller outlined the following considerations to impose disqualification for three years on Mr. López Mendoza due to the facts related with the company PDVSA: 236 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 227, para. 107; Case of Escher et al. V. Brasil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 208, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 118. 237 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5th of 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 77; Case of Escher y et al., supra note 236, para. 208, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 118. Similarly, the European Court has established in the Case of Suominen: “[T]he Court then reiterates that, according to its established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based.” Cf. Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, para. 34, 1 July 2003 238 Cf. Case of Yatama V. Nicaragua, supra note 209, párrs. 152 y 153; Case of Escher et al., supra note 236, para. 139, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 118. Likewise, the European Court has point out that the Judges should clearly state the reasons on which their decisions are based. Cf. ECHR, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, Judgment December 16, 1992, Series A no. 252, para. 23. 239 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. V. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19th of 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 122; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Dispute”), supra note 237, para. 78, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 118. 58