interference has been demonstrated by reason of the positions held by G.D.S.M., given that no elements were identified that could be considered to have influenced the impartiality of the jury. No evidence was identified linking G.D.S.M., in the exercise of his functions as President of the Council of the Magistracy, to the process of dismissal of the alleged victim. Finally, no document was submitted to this Court stating that Mr. Rico had filed a challenge in accordance with the provisions of Articles 13 to 16 of Law 8085. The only evidence submitted was a "recusal" filed against one of the jurors, once a decision was taken regarding the filing of the REN before the SCJBA.49 73. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the right to an impartial tribunal was not violated to the detriment of Mr. Rico. B.3. The right to a reasoned decision 74. The Court has pointed out that the duty to provide the grounds for a decision is one of the ‘due guarantees’ included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to due process. The Court has specified that the reasoning “is the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached” and entails a rational presentation of the reasons that led the judge to take a decision. The relevance of this guarantee relates to the correct administration of justice and avoidance of arbitrary decisions. In addition, the reasoning accords credibility to legal decisions in a democratic society and demonstrates to the parties that they have been heard.50 75. The above is linked to another aspect that highlights the value of the reasoning as a guarantee, which is to provide the possibility of contesting the decision and obtaining a fresh examination of the matter before a higher court in those cases in which it is possible to appeal the decision. Thus, the Court has already pointed out that "the grounds for the judicial decision must be provided to be able to guarantee the right of defense".51 However, the obligation to provide a reasoned decision does not require a detailed answer to every argument of the parties, but may vary according to the nature of the decision and, in each case, it is necessary to examine whether the guarantee has been fulfilled.52 76. Regarding the duty to state reasons and its relation to jury trials, this Court has indicated that the jury's verdict in the classic sense did not require presentation of the reasoning or externalization of the grounds. Like the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Court has also held that the absence of the reasons for the verdict does not, of itself, violate the guarantee of a reasoned decision. Indeed, there are reasons behind every verdict, even though in accordance with the essential nature of the jury, these are not expressed. 53 77. In VRP v. Nicaragua, it was recalled that some OAS States that use the system of trial by jury expressly establish different guarantees prohibiting arbitrary decisions and that the judge’s instructions to the jury, or even the provision of a questionnaire to the jurors with the matters to be decided, are established in the procedural laws of some States. The Court also indicated that the system of decisions based on firm conviction does not, in itself, violate the right to a fair trial provided that the person concerned is able to understand the reasons for the decision based on the proceedings as a whole. It also recalled that firm conviction is not Extraordinary Appeal for Annulment of July 6, 2000 (merits file, folios 222-286). Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, para. 268, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 254. 51 Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, para. 118, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, paras. 147 and 155, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 255. 52 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. ("Corte Primera de lo Contencioso Administrativo") v. Venezuela, para. 90, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 255. 53 Cf. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 258. 49 50 -19-