87. Apart from the violation of the right to be presumed innocent and the principle of legality, the Commission recalls that the Ombudsman had an obligation to adequately explain the reasons why the facts–which, as has been noted, were not proven–were subsumed in the causes invoked. 88. Based on its reading of the aforesaid regulations, the Commission finds that the communication that Mrs. Maldonado's siblings sent to the Ombudsman informing him of a family problem regarding an alleged falsification of a notarized document would not, prima facie, appear to square with the provisions cited by the Ombudsman in the dismissal decision. There is nothing in the Ombudsman's decision by which to understand that link. 89. On the contrary, the justification was extremely succinct and made no reference at all to the arguments offered by Mrs. Maldonado in her defense. On this point, the Commission recalls that the Court has determined that administrative authorities should examine the claims and arguments of the person concerned "fully and genuinely.” 91 Notably, the resolution does not contain an analysis by which to establish a match between the supposed facts and the causes of disciplinary measures contained in the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations. 90. This circumstance constitutes a violation of the right to sufficient justification, in connection with the principle of legality, which are recognized in Articles 8.1 and 9 of the American Convention, respectively 91. Additionally, the IACHR notes that according to the established facts, Mrs. Maldonado signed a document by which the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman paid her a sum of money for a variety of employment-related items, from July 1999 to May 2000, following her dismissal. 92. The Commission considers that those items do not have a compensatory content for the alleged violations in the instant case. The Commission could assess its connection with the facts and violations established in the report and evaluate its suitability and sufficiency in light of inter-American standards on reparations when it examines compliance with its recommendations. 92 Thus, the IACHR reiterates that the obligation to provide redress arises as a direct consequence of the State's responsibility for a violation of the Convention, which therefore, demands full and adequate reparation for the violations declared in this report.93 Conclusion 93. Based on its analysis thus far, the Commission concludes that the State of Guatemala violated Mrs. Maldonado's rights to a hearing with due guarantees, to sufficient justification, to be adequately informed of the reasons for the proceeding against her, and to adequate means to exercise her defense, recognized in Articles 8.1 and 8.2 of the Convention. The Commission also concludes that the State violated the principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mrs. Maldonado. All of these violations are taken in conjunction with Article 1.1 of said instrument. 1.2. The rights to appeal against punitive decisions and to judicial protection 91 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C. No. 268, par. 181; and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C. No. 234, par. 120. 92 In this regard, the Inter-American Court has held that “the amounts that have been paid for the violations established in this Judgment [may be deducted] when paying the reparations ordered.” I/A Court H.R., Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012, Series C No. 253, par. 389. 93 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, par. 221. 18