matter, including labor and administrative matters, the administration’s discretionality has certain limits that cannot be exceeded, and one of them is respect for human rights.74 The Court has also indicated that any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, whose decisions may affect the rights of an individual, is required to adopt the said decision with full respect for the guarantees of due process of law. 75 In this regard, Article 8 of the Convention establishes the guidelines for due process of law, which refers to the series of requirements that must be met in the procedural instances so that the individual is able to defend his rights adequately in relation to any act of the State that could infringe them. 76 89. Consequently, the duty to state the reasons for resolutions is a guarantee related to the proper administration of justice protecting the right of the individual to be tried for the reasons established by law and providing credibility to legal decisions in a democratic society. 77 Therefore, decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect human rights should be duly justified; otherwise, they would be arbitrary decisions. 78 In this regard, the reasoning for a judgment and certain administrative acts should reveal the facts, reasons and norms on which the authority based its decision in order to eliminate any sign of arbitrariness.79 In addition, 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 of challenging it and having the decision reviewed by an appellate body.80 Consequently, the duty to justify a decision is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8(1) to protect the right to due process.81 90. Therefore, as previously considered (supra para. 83), the removal from office of a provisional prosecutor must respond to: (i) the occurrence of the resolutive condition to which the designation or appointment was subject, or the conclusion of a predefined period of time for the holding and conclusion of a public competitive selection procedure for the appointment or designation of the permanent replacement of the provisional prosecutor, or (ii) because of serious disciplinary offenses or proven incompetence, following a procedure that complies with due guarantees and that ensures the objectivity and impartiality of the decision. 91. Based on the evidence provided to the case file, it cannot be argued that the procedure by which the appointment of Mr. Casa Nina was terminated was a disciplinary or a punitive procedure; nor is there any evidence to indicate that this decision was related to the holding of a competitive selection procedure or so that the post could be occupied by a career official. Therefore, the decision that terminated the presumed victim’s appointment did not respond to the permitted causes to safeguard his independence in the discharge of his duties (supra paras. 81 to 83). Consequently, the administrative authority failed to respect the guarantee of irremovability, which resulted in a violation of the judicial guarantees established in Article Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 126, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 105. 74 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 105. 75 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 69, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 105. 76 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 77 and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 106. 77 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 152, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 106. 78 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 Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 106. 79 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 78 and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 106. 80 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 78, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 106. 81 26