persons who guarantee that the accused will appear before the courts such that it sufficiently deter the person from taking flight. In addition, and in some circumstances, it would be considered reasonable to take into account the harm caused the accused.293 The decision that sets the amount of the bail has to duly justify why that amount is established in the specific case, and has to take into account the economic means of the accused.294 Based on the information provided by the parties, the IACHR will refer only to the alleged violations in the Gader and Street Lamps cases in this section. 264. The Commission notes in relation to the resolutions issued by the judges or courts on precautionary measures to which it had access, that the resolution of February 6, 2001 in the Gader case and the one issued November 10, 2000 in the Street Lamps case did not justify the sums or bonds set and did not take into account the economic means of the accused, even though according to Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the alternative measures should have been adopted by a reasoned resolution. Nor did the judicial authorities ask Ms. Andrade to present clear and real information about her economic situation before issuing said measures. 265. The Inter-American Court has noted in its case-law that the decision adopted by the domestic organs that may affect human rights should be duly reasoned, for otherwise they would be arbitrary decisions.295 In this sense, the argument of a judgment should show that due consideration has been given to the arguments of the parties and that all the evidence has been analyzed. In addition, the reasoning shows the parties that they have been heard, and, in those cases in which the decisions are appealable, that they are afforded the opportunity to criticize the resolution and have a new review of the issue before the higher-level bodies. In view of all the foregoing, the duty to state the reasoning of a decision is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to due process.296 266. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that in the instant case there was a violation of the right enshrined in Article 7(5) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 21 and 1(1) of the same instrument in the Gader and Street Lamps proceedings, to the detriment of Ms. Andrade. Article 7(5) of the American Convention in relation to Article 22 of the same instrument 267. In relation to Article 22 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has noted that the right to movement and residence, including the right to leave the country, may be subject to restrictions, in keeping with Articles 22(3) and 30 of the Convention. Nonetheless, such restrictions must be expressly established by law, to prevent crime or to protect national security, public safety, public order, public morals, or public health, or the rights or freedoms of others to the extent essential in a democracy society.297 The Commission, following the case-law of the Inter-American Court, will analyze, in the instant case, whether the State, on establishing restrictions on Ms. Andrade’s right to circulation, complied with the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality to the extend essential in a democracy society, which are inferred from Article 22(3) of the American Convention298, in relation to the criminal proceedings related to the Gader and Street Lamps cases, since the parties did not produce sufficient elements to determine whether there was a violation of this right in the other criminal proceedings to which Ms. Andrade was subjected. 293 ECHR, Case of Mangouras v. Spain (Application no. 12050/04), Grand Chamber, Judgment of 28 September 2010, paras. 78 and 81; Case of Toshev v. Bulgaria, (Application no. 56308/00), Judgment of 10 August 2006, para. 87; European Commission on Human Rights, Case of Moussa v. France (Application no. 28897/95), Commission decision of 21 May 1997, Decisions and Reports 89-B, p. 92). 294 ECHR, Case of Mangouras v. Spain (Application no. 12050/04), Grand Chamber, Judgment of 28 September 2010, para. 78 and 81. 295 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, para. 78. 296 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, para. 78. 297 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 117. 298 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 123.