duly justified, otherwise they would be arbitrary decisions. 123 The reasoning of a judgment must make it possible to learn the facts, motives, and laws on which the authority is basing its decision, so as to rule out any possibility of arbitrariness and show the parties that they have been heard. 124 It must also show that the pleadings of the parties have been duly taken into account and that the totality of the evidence has been examined. 125 95. Likewise, Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes that “[e]very person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law.” For this reason, the Court has indicated that that the principle of presumption of innocence constitutes a cornerstone of judicial guarantees. 126 The presumption of innocence implies that the defendant enjoys a legal state of innocence or not guilty while his responsibility is being determined, and therefore must be treated by the State in a manner that accords with their condition of a person who has not been convicted. 127 In relation to the foregoing, the principle of presumption of innocence requires that no one be convicted unless there is complete evidence or evidence beyond any reasonable doubt of their guilt, after a trial with due guarantees. 128 96. In addition, Article 9 of the American Convention provides that: “No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom.” In relation to this provision, this Court has interpreted that these mandates are applicable not only to the criminal sphere, but that their scope extends to administrative sanctioning matters. 129 The Court has maintained that administrative sanctions are an expression of the punitive power of the State and, at times, they are of a similar nature to criminal sanctions because both of them entail impairment, deprivation or alteration of human rights. Consequently, in a democratic system, it is necessary to take special care to ensure that such measures are adopted strictly respecting the basic rights of the individual and following a careful verification of the effective existence of a wrongful conduct. 130 97. Therefore, the Court holds that for the deprivation of nationality not to be arbitrary, any administrative or judicial act involved must: a) respect the principle of legality, so that the individual is not punished for actions and omissions not provided for by law; b) respect 123 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 152, and Case of Pávez Pávez v. Chile, supra, para. 152. Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 122, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 396, para. 214. 124 125 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Litigation”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 78, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 214. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits, supra, para. 77, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 132. 126 127 Cf. Case J v. Peru, supra, para. 157, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, para. 125. Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 120, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 114. 128 129 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 106, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 141. 130 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 106, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 89. 32