34 The right to obtain all the guarantees through which it may be possible to arrive at fair decisions is a human right, and the administration is not exempt from its duty to comply with it. The minimum guarantees must be observed in the administrative process and in any other procedure 123 whose decisions may affect the rights of persons. 132. In the instant case, and as established in the section on facts proven, the discharge of Mr. Flor from the Ecuadorian Army was the result of the sanction imposed by the military authorities based on the disciplinary responsibility shown in the context of the summary information proceeding. 133. In this respect, and in relation to the exercise of the punitive power of the State through its authorities, the Court has said that any form of exercising public power that violates the rights recognized in the Convention is unlawful. This is even more important when the State exercises its power to sanction, because this not only presumes that the authorities act with total respect for the legal system, but it also involves granting the minimum guarantees of due process to all persons who are subject to its 124 jurisdiction, as established in the Convention. 134. Based on these considerations, certain precedents established in the inter-American system indicate that in those cases in which the military jurisdiction is competent, the proceedings conducted by those authorities must respect the guarantees of due process established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention.125 Article 8(2) is also understood to apply to such situations, mindful that as the Court has said: … the range of minimum guarantees established in section 2 of Article 8 of the Convention is applied to the realms to which reference is made in section 1 of the same Article, that is, “the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” This reveals the broad scope of the due process; the individual has the right to the due process as construed under the terms of Articles 8(1) and 8(2) in both, penal matters, as in all of these other 126 domains. 135. The Inter-American Court has also stated that “any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, which, through its decisions determines individual rights and 123 I/A Court H.R. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Judgment of February 2, 2001, paras. 126 and 127. 124 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C. No. 71, para. 68. 125 See I/A Court H.R. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C, No. 228, para. 64. On the military criminal jurisdiction, the Court has noted that “its use should be minimal, as strictly necessary, and shall be inspired by the principles and guarantees governing modern criminal law.” See: I/A Court H.R. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009, para. 108; and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005, para. 132. The Human Rights Committee has done likewise on noting that military justice is not per se incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but it must afford “the full guarantees stipulated in Article 14.” See: United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 13 on Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, April 13, 1984. Equality before the courts and the right of every person to be heard in public by a competent court established by law, considering paragraph 4. 126 I/A Court H.R. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C, No. 72, para. 125.