25 in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, through the delays and failings of its judicial authorities in bringing and pursuing the criminal proceedings. 2. Right to a fair trial in connection with the action brought against the judge for his “lack of timely dispatch” (Article 8 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1) 100. Inter-American precedent has established that when criminal action is brought against private citizens, judges must ensure observance of the rules of due process by enabling the unrestricted 124 exercise of the guarantees set out in Article 8 of the American Convention. That guarantee is also provided for in Ecuadorian domestic law and its nonobservance, in cases such as the one at hand, leads to the imposition of penalties (supra IV B). 101. As indicated in the established facts, once the court had ruled that statutory limitations had been triggered, the complainant requested that a fine be imposed, in compliance with the provisions of Article 101 of the Criminal Code, holding that the prescription of the case was due to the judges’ lack of 125 timely dispatch. That claim was denied, with no grounds given (“inadmissible”), on November 10, 126 2005. 102. The IACHR wishes to point out that the guarantees established by Article 8.1 of the Convention must be upheld in all the different proceedings in which state agencies adopt decisions in the determination of individuals’ rights and that, in all instances, the guarantees intended to ensure that such decisions are neither arbitrary nor unjust must be observed. 127 103. As reference, Article 66.23 of the Ecuadorian Constitution establishes the right to address complaints and requests to the authorities and to receive attention and grounded replies. In addition, Article 76.l of the Constitution states that due process shall be ensured in all proceedings in which rights and obligations of any kind are established, including such guarantees as “resolutions by the branches of government shall be grounded” and the provision that administrative actions, resolutions, or judgments that are not duly grounded shall be deemed void of effect. 104. Hence, the need to indicate grounds that are related to the reasonableness of a decision is – in general, with the exception of those cases where the decision is a mere formality – a guarantee of due process and, applying Article 8 of the Convention to the case at hand, it must be understood as including the right of people under the jurisdiction of the Ecuadorian State to grounded decisions that 128 indicate both the considerations of law and the considerations of fact. 124 IACHR, Report No.7/06, Laura Albán Cornejo and others v. Ecuador, February 28, 2006, para. 61. I/A Court H. R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Series C No. 100, Judgment of December 8, 2003, opinion of Judge Ricardo Gil Lavedra. 125 Article 101 of the Criminal Code: “If statutory limitations are triggered as a result of a lack of timely dispatch on the part of the judges, they shall be punished by a fine imposed by the higher court […], without prejudice to the actions for damages admissible against such officials, pursuant to the terms of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same penalty shall apply to officials of the prosecution service and court clerks as a result of whose negligence statutory limitations are triggered.” Annex 68. Document of September 22, 2005. 126 Annex 69. First Criminal Trial Court of Guayas, Document 136/2005 of November 10, 2005. Annex 2 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Plenary Proceedings No. 136-05, p. 19. 127 I/A Court H. R., Case of Claude Reyes, Judgment of September 19, 2006, Series C No. 151; Palamara Iribarne Case, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 136, para. 164; Yatama Case, Judgment of June 23, 2005, Series C No. 127, para. 149; and Ivcher Bronstein Case, Judgment of February 6, 2001, Series C No. 74, para. 104. 128 In the case of Lori Berenson v. Peru, for example, the Commission held that in addition to the guarantees enshrined both sections of Article 8 of the Convention, those arising from general principles of law were also applicable, provided that the case in question entailed an impairment of the right of defense of one of the parties. As the Inter-American Court has ruled, “by labeling these guarantees as minimum guarantees, the Convention assumes that other, additional guarantees may be necessary in specific circumstances to ensure a fair hearing.” I/A Court H. R., Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46.1, 46.2.a, and 46.2.b of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990, Ser. A No. 11, para. 24.