B. Judicial guarantees regarding the administrative proceedings 110. Notwithstanding the foregoing, regarding the right to be elected, the Court shall proceed with an analysis of the controversy between the parties regarding the alleged violation of various guarantees in the administrative proceedings that took place both for the imposition of the fine as well as for the disqualification as a candidate. 111. The Court has stated that all bodies which exercise functions of a judicial nature, whether criminal or not, have a duty to adopt fair decisions based on the full respect for the guarantees of due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention.212 The Court also recalls that established in its jurisprudence in that the administrative and disciplinary sanctions are, like the criminal ones, an expression of the punitive power of the State and, on occasions, of the same nature. 213 1. Guarantees in the administrative proceeding that resulted in a fine 112. The Commission did not develop specific arguments regarding the alleged violation of the right to defense and the presumption of innocence in relation to the administrative responsibility proceedings that resulted in sanctions in the form of a fine. Therefore, in the following sections, the controversy between the representatives and the State will be analyzed in respect to these guarantees. 1.1. Right to defense and right to appeal the sanctioning decision 1.1.1. Arguments of the parties 113. The representatives argued that Mr. López Mendoza “was not guarante[ed] the right to be heard within a reasonable period of time” nor “the appropriate time or means to prepare his defense” and was granted only “15 working days to present evidence and defend himself” after the charge against him was filed. Similarly, they also noted that "he was not guaranteed the right to be assisted by counsel provided by the State nor the right to question witnesses.” They also indicated that the alleged victim was denied the “right [...] to request the temporary suspension of sanctions during the annulment hearing,” that “a corresponding charge was never provided,” and that “only a motion to reconsider was possible” before the same official who imposed the sanctions. 114. In this regard, the State indicated that the administrative proceeding, consisting of various procedural phases and stages “offered all the guarantees for the individual to defend his rights and interests.” Moreover, it added that the Inter-American System cannot act as a fourth instance in cases brought before its jurisdiction. 212 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 104, and Case of of the Constitutional Court V. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71. 213 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, of 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 106, and Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 170. 49