because their time limit lapsed or the condition of their appointment was fulfilled. Accordingly, the Commission finds that in the instant case the appointment of the alleged victim without any time limit or condition, only generically citing the “needs for service,” was incompatible with the Convention. 56. In this context, the State has not managed to prove that the situation of provisional appointment of the alleged victim for five consecutive years had any specific purpose linked to a delimited timeframe or an operative condition of his appointment. Under the above-cited international standards, the alleged victim was entitled to his removal from office being consistent with the only other acceptable option under said standards, which is, a proceeding in which the right to defense and the principle of legality are respected, inasmuch as there should have been a formal disciplinary proceeding. 57. Based on the proven facts, it is clear that by the nature of the act whereby the alleged victim was removed, he did not have a proceeding that fulfilled the minimum guarantees stemming from the right to a defense and the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto law). 58. By virtue of the foregoing reasoning, the IACHR finds that the State violated Articles 8.1, 8.2 b), 8.2 c) and 9 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2, to the detriment of Julio Casa Nina. 3.2 The right to a properly reasoned decision34 and the principle of the presumption of innocence35 59. The Commission recalls that the duty to state grounds is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8.1 to safeguard the right to due process,36 which consists of “the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached”37 and constitutes a right to expect that decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect his or her human rights or interest will be duly substantiated; otherwise, they would be arbitrary decisions. Said duty “is a guarantee related to the correct administration of justice, which protects the right of the people to be tried for the reasons established by law and grants credibility to judicial decisions in a democratic society.”38 60. The IACHR has held that a reasoned decision in proceedings of a punitive nature serves a twofold purpose: to show 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. As the Inter-American Court has held, in disciplinary proceedings, “it is essential to indicate the violation precisely and to submit arguments that allow it to be concluded that the comments provide sufficient grounds to justify removing a judge from a post.” The requirement of providing sufficient grounds for a decision is highly relevant since the purpose of disciplinary oversight is to assess a public official’s or civil servant’s conduct, qualifications and performance. Therefore, the statement of the grounds or the reasoning thereof is the appropriate place to examine the severity of the conduct attributed to the person in question and whether the disciplinary measure is proportionate to that conduct.39 Article 8.1 of the Convention establishes that every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 35 Article 8.2 of the American Convention establishes that every 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. 36 IA Court of HR. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, par. 118. 34 IA Court of HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 107. 37 38 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, par. 224. 39 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, par. 225. 11