sanctions imposed by the Disciplinary Court and, in turn, the National Police Personnel Act provided for appeal as a means of challenging the sanctions imposed. As a result, this normative confusion, which was not clarified by the State, determines that, in the specific case, there has been a violation of Article 8(2) (h) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 2 of the same international instrument. 92. In this regard, the Court considers that, in order to avoid discrepancies like the one mentioned above, the resolution notifying the disciplinary sanction adopted, as well as the one that notifies the initiation of the investigation and the charges, should establish the remedies available to the interested party, the deadline for their submission, and the competent authority for their consideration. This is because access to judicial guarantees requires that individuals whose rights may be affected fully understand the available remedies and how to take action. The Court understands that sanctioning matters are generally technical, and if the sanctioned person is not aware of the available remedies, their lack of knowledge can become a barrier to accessing the means of appeal provided in domestic legislation. 93. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, the State is internationally responsible for the violation of Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument, and of Article 8(2)(h), in relation to Article 2 of the same Convention, to the detriment of Víctor Henrry Mina Cuero. In view of the above, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to analyze the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(d) of the Convention. B.2. Rights to a reasoned decision and the presumption of innocence 94. The Court has pointed out 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 set out in Article 8(1) of the Convention, which is connected to the proper administration of justice, 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.79 Decisions adopted domestic bodies of States that could affect human rights must be duly reasoned; otherwise, they would be arbitrary decisions.80 95. Thus, 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 challenge it, and to have the decision reviewed by a higher body. Accordingly, the reasoning of a decision and of certain administrative acts allows the facts, reasons and laws on which the authority based its decision to be known, in order to rule out any indication of arbitrariness.81 96. Likewise, Article 8(2) of the American Convention stipulates that "[e]very person accused of a crime has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law." In the criminal context, the Inter-American Court has stated that the principle of presumption of innocence constitutes a foundation of judicial guarantees,82 which is also applicable in sanctioning processes as an expression of the States ius puniendi. The Cf. 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, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 153. 80 Cf. Caso of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 152, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 152. 81 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 122, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 154. 82 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 77, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 95.. 79