25 bodies that could affect human rights should be duly grounded; otherwise, they would be arbitrary 99 decisions. In this regard, the reasoning for a ruling and for certain administrative acts should provide information regarding the facts, reasons and norms on which the authority based its 100 decision, in order to rule out any suggestion of arbitrariness. It must also show that that the arguments of the parties have been duly weighed and that the body of evidence has been analyzed. Based on all the foregoing, the duty to state grounds is one of the “due guarantees” 101 included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to a fair trial. 117. For its part and regarding the specific guarantees recognized in article 8(2) of the American Convention, the Court has held that the administration may not dictate punitive administrative actions without granting the individuals sanctioned the above minimum guarantees, which are applied 102 mutatis mutandis to punitive proceedings. 118. In applying a number of these guarantees to a specific case concerning immigration, the Commission referred to the need to ensure that persons can “prepare their defense, formulate their claims and submit evidence,” which guarantees are impossible to exercise when the government’s 103 decision is carried out in an “unreasonably short time.” 119. For its part, in referring to the scope of the right of defense in the context of an immigration proceeding, the Court has held that it binds the State to treat the person, at all times, as a true party to the proceeding, in the broadest 104 sense of this concept and not simply as an object thereof. Article 8(2)(d) and (e) establish the right of the accused to defend himself or herself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his or her own choosing, and, if the accused does not so chose, the accused has the inalienable right to be assisted by a counsel provided by the State, paid or not as the domestic law provides. In this respect and for cases concerning non-criminal procedures, the Tribunal has previously established that “the circumstances of a particular case or proceeding—its significance, its legal character, and its context in a particular legal system—are among the factors that bear on the determination of 105 whether legal representation is or is not necessary for due process.” …continuation the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based.” Cf. Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801/97, para. 34, 1 July 2003. 99 I/A Court H.R. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011, Series C No. 233. par. 141. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C, No. 127. pars. 152 and 153. Likewise, the European Court has pointed out that the judges must indicate with sufficient clarity the reasons for which they adopt their decisions. Cf. ECHR, Hadjianstassiou v. Greece, Judgment of 16 December, 1992, Series A No. 252, para. 23. 100 I/A Court H.R. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011, Series C No. 233. par. 141. Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C, No. 151, par. 122. 101 I/A Court H.R. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011, Series C No. 233. par. 141 102 I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. Case v. Panama. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C, No. 72. par. 128. See also Second Progress Report of the Rapporteruship on Migrants Workers and their Families in the Hemisphere, OEA/Ser./L/V/II.111 doc. 20 rev., 16 April 2001, pars. 98 a 100. 103 IACHR, Report No. 49/99. Case 11.610. Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein, and Rodolfo Izal Elorz. Mexico. April 13, 1999. par. 60; IACHR. Report No. 84/09. Case 12.525. Nelson Iván Serrano Sáenz. Publication. Ecuador. August 6, 2009. pars. 61 and 62. 104 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C, No. 218. par. 145. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C, No. 206. par. 29. 105 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C, No. 218. par. 145. Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b), American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A, No. 11, par. 28.