officer must therefore be removed from their position, it becomes a materially punitive process, since the dismissal of the person evaluated is a penalty for poor performance. 125 132. Furthermore, this Court pointed out that “in the opinion of the Court, to a process of evaluation or ratification, insofar as it involves the possibility of dismissal of the officials evaluated in cases of incompetence or poor performance, the guarantees of due process characteristic of disciplinary processes are applicable, although their scope may be different in content or intensity.” 126. 133. In this regard, Article 8 of the Convention establishes the guidelines of due legal process, which refers to the set of requirements that must be observed in the procedural instances so that individuals are in a position to adequately defend their rights before any act of the State that may impair them. In this sense, in its established case law, this Court has indicated that it is required of any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, whose decisions may affect the rights of individuals, to adopt said decisions with full respect for the guarantees of due legal process. 127 134. Once it has been determined that the evaluation and ratification process followed by the alleged victims is materially punitive and that, therefore, the guarantees of due process inherent to disciplinary processes are applicable, it is necessary to determine whether or not said process complied with the essential guarantees for judges and prosecutors related to: (a) the duty to substantiate decisions (article 8(1)); (b) the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means for a defense (article 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c), and (c) political rights (article 23(1)(c)) . B.2. Duty to substantiate decisions 135. In this case, the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victims alleged the violation of the right to duly substantiated decisions (Article 8(1)) and of the principle of legality (Article 9). The Court deems it pertinent to analyze these alleged violations jointly, as it has done in previous cases when it comes to processes evaluating judicial officials. 136. In relation to the right to expect duly substantiated decisions, the Court has repeatedly indicated that the substantiation “is the externalization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached” 128 and that it implies a rational exposition of the reasons that lead the judge to make a decision. 129 The duty to state grounds is a guarantee that emerges from Article 8(1) of the Convention, linked to the proper administration of justice, since it protects the right of citizens to be judged for the reasons provided for in law and gives credibility to legal decisions in a democratic society. 130 137. Thus, substantiation shows the parties that they have been heard and, in those cases in which the decisions are actionable, provides the possibility of criticizing the decision and obtaining a new examination before higher courts. In accordance with the foregoing, the argumentation of a ruling and of certain administrative acts must make it possible to know the facts, motives and norms on which the authority based its decision, in order to rule out any indication of 125 Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 3 junio de 2021. Serie C No. 425, párr. 69. 126 Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 70. 127 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 69 and 71, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 95. 128 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez y Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 79. 129 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 268, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 79. 130 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 77, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 79. 35