63. The Commission has indicated that compliance with the principle of legality enables persons effectively to determine if their conduct is lawful.93 As the IACHR has held, “The principle of legality has a specific role in the definition of crimes; on the one hand, it guarantees individual liberty and safety by preestablishing the behavior that is penalized clearly and unambiguously and, on the other hand, it protects legal certainty.”94 64. The precision of a norm establishing a sanction of a disciplinary nature may be different from that required by the principle of legality in a criminal matter, owing to the nature of the disputes that each one is designed to resolve.95 However, it must be predictable, “either because the punishable conduct is expressly and clearly established, precisely, clearly and previously, by law, or because the law delegates its imposition to the judge or to an infra-legal norm, under objective criteria that limit the scope of discretion.”96 65. The obligation to justify decisions, translates as the "reasons justification" that allows the judge to arrive at a conclusion.97 That guarantee is closely related to the principle of legality since on the premise that the disciplinary grounds must be established in the State's legal framework in accordance with the above-describe standards, the justification for a ruling and certain administrative decisions should disclose “the facts, reasons and standards on which the authority for the decision was based.”98 In that regard, the justification for the punitive decision is what discloses how the facts supporting the proceeding align with or fall within the scope of the grounds invoked. On this point, in Cruz Flores v. Peru, the Court stressed the need that in all punitive decisions there be a link between the conduct of which the person is accused and the provision on which the decision is based.99 As regards the applicable penalty, the "principle of maximum severity" of the punishment of dismissal of a judge implies that it is only appropriate for "clearly reproachable conduct” and "genuinely serious reasons of misconduct or incompetence."100 66. In the instant case, the State had not adopted legislative measures to establish a disciplinary regime for judges of the TSE, which meant that at the time of the events there were no applicable disciplinary grounds or penalties in place. A disciplinary proceeding in such circumstances was, in and of itself, contrary to the principle of legality. 67. Furthermore, neither Decree 348 nor Decree 899 describe concrete acts committed by Mr. Colindres in the performance of his official duties by which to match his behavior to any grounds for disciplinary measures, which, as noted, did not even exist. The Legislative Assembly omitted to mention in the dismissal decision the specific matters in which Judge Colindres had purportedly intervened, or the acts that seemingly compromised his impartiality, necessitating the imposition of the most severe penalty. 93IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116.Doc 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, par. 225, and Executive Summary, par. 17. 94IACHR, Application and submissions to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru; referenced in: I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004, Series C No. 115, par. 74. 95Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 257. 96Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 259. 97I/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. 98 I/A Court H.R., Case of Apitz-Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, par. 78, and Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, par. 224. 99 115, par. 84. I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 100 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 259. 16