57 Justiça (supra para. 110). In this decision, the latter stated that the “matter [of the administrative errors in which Judge Khater may have incurred] had already been decided with the ruling of the Special Organ (No. 4745 – Criminal Investigation N No. 82,516-5 […]) and since there was no other residual error to investigate that would justify continuing the disciplinary procedure, its closure was ordered.”184 208. The Court has indicated that the grounds [for a decision] “are the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.”185 In general, the obligation to provide grounds for a decision is a guarantee related to the proper administration of justice, which grants credibility to juridical decisions in a democratic society.186 The same can be said in this case with regard to the administrative decision on the functional responsibility of the judge. The Court has stated previously that the provisions of Article 8(1) apply to the decisions of administrative bodies, which should “comply with these guarantees designed to ensure that the decision is not arbitrary”;187 hence, such decisions must be duly founded. 209. The Court considers that the Corregedoria-Geral da Justiça should have founded its decision regarding the absence of the functional errors attributed to Judge Khater that are mentioned in the criminal investigation into the interception and recording of the telephone conversations, and not merely indicate that the facts had already been examined by the Court of Justice of the state of Paraná, when it was precisely that court which had indicated that the judge’s actions did not constitute a criminal offense, but rather a functional error (supra para. 201). If the administrative organ understood that these errors did not exist, as revealed by the decision, it should have established the reasons why it reached this conclusion and, if applicable, examine why Judge Khater was not responsible, rather than remitting the case to a court whose material competence was distinct and that had determined the need for an administrative investigation. Consequently, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to provide grounds for the administrative decision concerning responsibility for the interception and recording of the telephone conversation (infra para. 214). 210. In addition, the Court finds no evidence that any procedures were initiated to examine the administrative responsibility of the Military Police agents and the former Secretary of Security for the interception and dissemination of the telephone conversations. 4) Civil proceedings 211. The Court observes that the filing of a civil action for compensation depends on the initiative of the interested party and there is no evidence in this case that Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral and Celso Aghinoni filed an action of this nature. Therefore, the Court finds that the factual presumption required in order to examine a possible violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection in relation to these three victims in the context of the civil actions does not exist. 184 Decision of the Corregedoria-Geral da Justiça of September 28, 2001, supra note 108, folio 3195. 185 Cf. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 136, para. 77, and Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 152. 186 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 136, para. 77 and Case of Tristán Donoso supra note 9, para. 152. 187 Case of Claude Reyes et al., supra note 175, para. 119.