the duty of the international tribunal is to find out if all proceedings were carried out in compliance with international provisions.72 1.1.2 Determination of rights and applicable guarantees 64. Both the Commission and the Inter-American Court have consistently held that, in general, the guarantees recognized in Article 8 of the American Convention are not confined to criminal proceedings, but apply also to other types of proceedings. 73 Specifically, where punitive proceedings are concerned, both organs of the system have held that the guarantees enshrined in Article 8.2 of the American Convention apply analogously.74 The “due guarantees” established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention are also applicable in other proceedings in which rights or interests are addressed, including the right to sufficient justification for decisions.75 The decision as to what constitute "due guarantees" in a particular proceeding for a determination on rights must take into account the nature of the proceeding and the legal interests in play.76 65. Broadly, the Court has stressed the need for the basic guarantees of due process to be observed and for the person whose interests are harmed to be offered an effective remedy to challenge the measure.77 Likewise, the European Court has found that due process guarantees must be observed and ensured in administrative proceedings that conclude in the dismissal of a civil servant. 78 66. Based on the above, to determine which guarantees the State had the obligation to afford in a specific case, it is necessary to refer the nature of the proceeding in question. 67. This case concerns an administrative proceeding that led to the separation from office of a civil servant. In that sense, the proceeding clearly had an impact on Mrs. Maldonado's rights. Accordingly, the basic guarantees set forth in Article 8.1 of the Convention were applicable. 68. Furthermore, the Commission finds that the established facts disclose that the proceeding had a clearly punitive character. In that respect, the Commission notes that both the initial notification to Mrs. Maldonado and the Ombudsman's decision cite the provisions that contain causes of disciplinary measures. In addition, the Commission notes that what gave rise to the administrative proceeding was the receipt of 72 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C. No. 166, par. 142; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C. No. 119, par. 133; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C. No. 101, par. 200; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C. No. 99, par. 120. 73 I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C. No. 72, pars. 126-27; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C. No. 71, par. 69-70; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, par. 111. See also: IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12.600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al. (Supreme Court of Justice) Ecuador, March 31, 2011, par. 102. 74 I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C. No. 72, pars. 126-127. See also: IACHR, Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. A Review of the Standards Adopted by the Inter-American System of Human Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129. September 7, 2007, pars. 98-123; and Case No. 12.828, Report 112/12, Marcel Granier et al., Venezuela, Merits, November 9, 2012, par. 188. 75 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C. No. 234, par. 118; and Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C. No. 151, par. 118. 76 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C. No. 234, pars 118-119. 77 I/A Court H.R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C. No. 182, par. 147; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C. No. 158, par. 126; and Baena Ricardo et al. Case v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C. No. 72, par. 131. 78 ECHR, Cudak v. Lithuania. Application No. 15869/02. Judgment of March 23, 2010, para. 42; Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine. Application No. 21722/11. Judgment of January 9, 2013, para. 88. 14