reached.211 The obligation to provide the reasons for a ruling is a guarantee related to the proper administration of justice that ensures to citizens their right to be tried for the reasons established by law, while providing credibility to judicial decisions in a democratic society.212 Based on the foregoing, the rulings adopted by the States’ domestic courts that may affect human rights must be reasoned; to the contrary, they would be arbitrary.213 The reasoning of a ruling should provide information on the facts, grounds and laws on which the court has based itself to take its decision, so that any indication of arbitrariness can be dismissed, while demonstrating to the parties that they have been heard during the proceedings.214 Also, it should show that the arguments of the parties have been duly taken into account and that all the evidence has been analyzed. 215 172. Regarding this case, the Court recalls that, on November 23, 2001, May 27, and June 10, 2002, the Asociación Coordinadora de Sectores de Lucha Contra el SIDA (ACSLCS), the Ombudsman, and other organizations that represent people living with HIV/AIDS, sent three letters in which they asked the State of Guatemala, through the President of the Republic and the Ministry of Health, to provide medical care and antiretroviral treatment to everyone diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, without receiving any response (supra para. 56). Due to the lack of response from the President and the Minister of Health, on July 26, 2002, 22 people, including 13 of the presumed victims, filed an application for amparo before the Constitutional Court (supra para. 57). The applicants indicated that, as a result of this refusal or omission by the President, the right to personal protection, the right to life, the right of petition, the rights inherent to the individual, and the right to health had been violated, and asked the Constitutional Court to decide the application for amparo promptly. They also indicated that the State had the obligation to guarantee their right to life by a policy of procurement and non-discriminatory, systematic and daily distribution of antiretroviral drugs, preferably good quality generic drugs available on the market. 173. In response to the request the President authorized a special appropriation of five hundred thousand quetzals (Q.500,000.00) to meet the requirements of people living with HIV (supra para. 60). On October 29, 2002, the applicants acknowledged the willingness of the President of Guatemala to respond to the requests made in the initial application by allocating five hundred thousand quetzals for the care of people living with HIV. However, they asserted that the reasons for filing the application for amparo subsisted, because the antiretroviral treatment had not been initiated for everyone living with this diagnosis, as treatment was only being provided to 27 of them (supra para. 60). To prove the connection between the human rights violation claimed and the applicants for amparo, the applicants Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, 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. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 268. 211 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Contentious Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 77, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 268. 212 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 Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 187. 213 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 the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 168. 214 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Contentious Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 78, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 187. 215 61