clear evidence of responsibility in a conviction constitutes a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence.”100 In this regard, any doubt must be used in benefit of the accused.101 The Court considers that the right to presumption of innocence is an essential element for the effective exercise of the right to defense which accompanies the defendant throughout the proceedings until the judgment determining his guilt is final. This means that the defendant does not have to prove that he has not committed the offense of which he is accused, because the onus probandi is on those who have made the accusation.102 115. With respect to the requirement to provide the grounds for a judgment, the Court has repeatedly indicated that the grounds “are the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached,”103 and that the duty to state the grounds for a decision is a guarantee derived from Article 8(1) of the Convention, associated with the proper administration of justice, which protects the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons provided by law, giving credibility to the legal decisions adopted in a democratic society.104 Therefore, the decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect human rights must be duly justified; otherwise, they would be arbitrary decisions.105 116. The Court emphasizes the importance of such justification in order to guarantee the principle of presumption of innocence, mainly in a conviction, which must express the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to confirm the accusatory hypothesis; the observance of the rules of sound judgment in the assessment of the evidence, including those that could cast doubt on criminal responsibility; and the final judgment derived from this assessment. Judicial decisions must reflect the reasons why it was possible to obtain a conviction on the charges and the criminal liability, as well as the assessment of the evidence to disprove any presumption of innocence, and only then be able to confirm or refute the accusatory hypothesis. This would make it possible to refute the presumption of innocence and determine the criminal liability beyond all reasonable doubt. When in doubt, the presumption of innocence and the principle in dubio pro reo, operate as a decisive criterion at the time of issuing the judgment.”106 117. The Court notes that on March 13, 2000, the Court of the First Military Zone issued the judgment “in accordance with the Military Prosecutor General and based on all the foregoing considerations.” Said court declared Mr. Vicente Aníbal Grijalva Bueno responsible for the crime defined and punished under Article 146, paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Military Criminal Code, and sentenced him to two hundred days of correctional Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 121, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 122. 101 Cf. Case of Ruano Torres v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 127, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 122. 102 Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 154, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 138. 103 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 268. 104 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 77, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits, supra, para. 79. 105 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, paras. 152 and 153, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, supra, para. 118. 106 Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 147, and Case of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 387, para. 120. 100 30