96. As regards, the obligation to justify decisions, the jurisprudence of the inter-American system has stated that it translates as the “reasoned justification" that allows the judge to arrive at a conclusion.50 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.” 51 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.52 97. As is described in the section on proven facts, in this case the Disciplinary Tribunal ordered the alleged victim to be discharged from the police for the causes envisaged at paragraphs 5 and 26 of Article 64 of the Disciplinary Regulations of the National Police with the aggravating factors recognized at paragraphs (c), (d), and (m) of Article 30 of those same regulations. 98. Paragraphs 5 and 26 of Article 64 recognizes as serious or class III offenses “any act that evinces inconsideration or insolence to a superior, whether on duty or off duty” and “engaging in manifest acts of violence or indiscipline toward a superior, where the act does not constitute a criminal offense.” The Commission notes that those causes are somewhat broad. Therefore, the punishing authority should have provided more detailed justification that linked the specific deeds of which Mr. Mina Cuero was accused with the causes that were invoked against him and the penalty to be imposed. Such justification was especially important in this case, bearing in mind the ambiguity and lack of clarity as to whether the proceeding concerned what happened at the home of Mr. Mina Cuero’s former live-in partner or what occurred at the place where the police went afterwards. As the record of the hearing shows, both circumstances were addressed in the context of the same hearing. In spite of that, the justification provided by the Disciplinary Tribunal does not indicate how the events were consistent with the aforesaid causes. In addition, no reasoning was offered with regard to the imposition of the most severe penalty; that is, dismissal. 99. The Commission understands that discipline is important in the security forces. It also understands that is the State has a duty of response to a complaint of possible domestic violence. However, the State’s actions must adhere to due process and the principle of legality, which did not occur in this case as the preceding considerations show. 100. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 9 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Víctor Henry Mina Cuero. 4. The right to appeal the judgment53 and the right to judicial protection54 101. The right to appeal a judgment is part of due process of law in a disciplinary proceeding,55 as well as a fundamental guarantee whose purpose is to avoid a miscarriage of justice from becoming res judicata.56 As regards the scope of the right of appeal, both the IACHR and the Court have stated that it entails an examination of both factual and legal aspects of the appealed decision by a different judge or tribunal of 50I/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. 51 IACHR, Report No. 103/13, Case 12.816, Report on Merits, Adan Guillermo Lopez Lone et al., Honduras, par. 145. 52 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. 84. 53 Article 8(2)(h) recognizes the “right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” 54 Article 25(1) of the Convention states: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 55 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators: Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, par. 235; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 23, 2010, Series C No. 218. par. 179. 56IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica, April 4, 2014, par. 186.