administrative conduct; on the evening of December 11, 2012, the Congress approved the Special Committee’s report; and in the early morning hours of December 12, 2012—only hours later, it must be said—the justices were dismissed. The Commission deems that the excessive speed with which the Congress acted allowed no room for even a minimal defense on technical or material grounds on the part of the alleged victims. 72. Finally, the Commission takes note that the four justices of the Constitutional Chamber learned that they had been removed from office after the Congress had already announced the sanction, as they were never provided official notification of their dismissal. 73. In view of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR considers that the Honduran State is responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 8(2)(b), (c), and (d) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma. 74. As to the obligation to provide grounds for decisions, inter-American case law has indicated that this translates into the “reasoned justification” that allows the judge to arrive at a conclusion. 75 The Court has indicated that this “is a guarantee related to the correct administration of justice, which protects the right of the people to be tried for the reasons established by law and grants credibility to judicial decisions in a democratic society.” 76 According to the Inter-American Court, administrative disciplinary decisions must indicate the violation precisely and submit arguments that allow it to be concluded that what occurred is sufficiently serious to justify removing [a public official] from a post. 77 Moreover, the requirement for proper justification is extremely important because the purpose of disciplinary oversight is to assess a public official’s conduct, suitability, and performance, and therefore it is in the justification itself where the seriousness of the conduct and the proportionality of the sanction should be analyzed. 78 75. In this regard, it is not the IACHR’s role to determine whether the laws being challenged were in fact unconstitutional, or whether the decisions issued by the Constitutional Chamber in relation to those cases were correct, nor whether the alleged victims committed administrative irregularities. However, under the standards cited with regard to judicial independence and under the domestic legal framework itself, in a case such as the one at hand it was the obligation of the authority that decided upon the alleged victims’ dismissal, in this case the National Congress, to provide a justification that would clearly establish the reasons for the determination to impose the most severe sanction. 76. On that point, the Commission considers that Decree No. 191-2012 fails to provide any justification and simply indicates that there was disapproval of the administrative conduct of the four justices of the Constitutional Chamber, and that their positions had been left vacant in accordance with Article 205, paragraphs 20 and 21, of the Constitution. The Commission takes note that the decision of dismissal does not include any precise indication of what, in the judgment of the Honduran Congress, may have constituted a serious offense or even the alleged “disapproved administrative conduct” on the part of the justices. The terse lines of the decree in question did not develop arguments that would make it possible to conclude that the comments on the alleged victims’ conduct were sufficiently serious to warrant removing them from their posts. 77. The Commission also observes that this complete lack of argumentation is in itself also a result of the legal vacuum on disciplinary proceedings against high-level judges and a violation of the principle of legality, as explained above. IACHR, Report No. 72/17, Case 13.019, Report on Merits, Eduardo Rico, Argentina, July 5, 2017, par. 116; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 3, 2016, Series C No. 311, par. 87. 76 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 1, 2011, Series C No. 227, par. 118. 77 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 1, 2011, Series C No. 227, par. 120. 78 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 1, 2011, Series C No. 227, par. 120. 75 16