22 sufficient grounds to permit the interested parties to know the reasons why the restriction of their liberty is being maintained. To determine this, it is necessary to examine whether the judicial proceedings guaranteed not only the formal possibility of submitting arguments, but the form in which the right to defense was effectively manifested as a real safeguard of the rights of the accused. This implies a prompt and justified response by the authorities to the arguments in answer to the charges. In this regard, the Court has underscored that the decisions adopted by national bodies that could affect human rights must be duly justified, because, if not, they would be arbitrary decisions.56 The grounds are the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached. In this understanding, the Court summarizes the arguments made by the victims to obtain their release and the response they obtained from the competent authorities. 108. In the instant case, the “presumptions of responsibility” that the Police had against Mr. Chaparro were based, inter alia, on the fact that: The MAROR company, which is owned by the international drug-trafficking organization, bought the ice chests for packing the fish from PLUMAVIT. […] From examining the system used to camouflage the seized cocaine and heroine hydrochloride, it is indisputable that the PVC tubes that contained the drugs […] were placed in the molds of the injector machines so that, when the ice chests were made, the drugs became a structural part of the base of the ice chests, which means that it was in factory where these thermal insulated boxes were made […] that the actual camouflage of the drugs took place. […] In his eagerness to avoid responsibility, JUAN CARLOS CHAPARRO [Á]LVAREZ […] tr[ied] to explain that [the ice chests] were not manufactured in his company […], and it was possible that, if they were not manufactured in this company, they had been stored on his premises. […] In this case, responsibility was attributed to JUAN CARLOS CHAPARRO [Á]LVAREZ, in his capacity as Owner Manager of PLUMAVIT and legal representative and also because, as the owner, he was aware and had full knowledge of everything that took place in his company.57 109. The Police indicated that Mr. Lapo: Presented a series of technical explanations that attempted to support his version, to the effect that the ice chests where the drugs were found were not manufacture in PLUMAVIT. But, as a technician, he is able to change the molds and respond to any of the client’s requirements and, even if the ice chests in question had not been made there, he was present […] during the night-time delivery of the finished [ice] chests with the drugs contained in their structure […].58 110. During the domestic proceedings, five expert appraisals were carried out, and most of the arguments submitted by the defense were based on them. The first appraisal concluded that the mold found in the Plumavit factory “did not correspond to the one used to make the boxes involved in the criminal offense.”59 This expert appraisal was requested by the Guayas INTERPOL Provincial Chief,60 before the Police sent their report to the judge in the case and, according to Mr. Chaparro, at his own express request. Indeed, during the public hearing in this case (supra para. 8), Mr. Chaparro indicated 56 Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 144, 153 and 164. Also, the European Court has stated that judges must indicate the reasons underlying their decisions. See Eur. Court H.R., Hadjianstassiou v. Greece, Judgment of 16 December 1992, para. 23. 57 Cf. report No. 512-JPA-G-97, supra note 30 (folios 3018 to 3020). 58 Cf. report No. 512-JPA-G-97, supra note 30 (folio 3021). 59 Cf. Official communication DEC-FIMCP-560-97 issued on December 8, 1997, by the Dean of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Production Sciences of the Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL) (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 12, folio 877). 60 Cf. Official communication No. 3597–JPAG–97 issued on November 24, 1997, by the Guayas INTERPOL Provincial Chief (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 9, folios 858-859).