protected by article 31. The only differentiation between the alleged victims that this Court will take into account in order to rule on the alleged violations of the American Convention is the determination of whether or not they filed a petition before the Central Bank under article 31, and this will allow the Court to determine the victims in this case (infra paras. 142 to 147). 116. Article 8 of the American Convention establishes the standards of due process of law, which consists of a series of requirements that must be observed by the procedural instances, so that every person may defend his rights adequately when faced with any type of act of the State that may affect them.207 117. According to the provision of Article 8(1) of the Convention, when determining a person’s rights and obligations of a criminal, civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature, “due guarantees” must be observed, which ensure the right to due process in the corresponding proceedings.208 The failure to comply with one of these guarantees entails a violation of this provision of the Convention.209 118. Article 8(1) of the Convention is not applicable only to judges and courts. The guarantees established by this norm must be observed in the different procedures in which State bodies adopt decisions determining a person’s rights, because the State also entrusts the function of adopting decisions that determine rights to administrative, collegiate or single-person authorities.210 119. The guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention are also applicable to the hypothesis in which a public authority adopts decisions that determine such rights,211 taking into account that the guarantees inherent in a jurisdictional body cannot be required of the former, but nevertheless it must comply with the guarantees designed to ensure that the decision is not arbitrary.212 120. The Court has developed the right to be heard protected by Article 8(1) of the Convention, in the general sense of understanding that everyone has the right to have access to a court or an organ of the State responsible for determining his rights and obligations,213 which, in certain types of proceedings, must be exercised orally.214 Furthermore, when ruling on the observance of the guarantees of due process in the 207 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra note 15, para. 142, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 115. 208 Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b), American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 28; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 11, para. 149; Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 148, and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 117. 209 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra note 208, para. 117. 210 Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra note 208, para. 118. Also, cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126 and 127. 211 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71; Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra note 208, para. 149, and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra note 208, para. 119. 212 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra note 208, para. 119. 213 Cf. 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. 72; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 101, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 140. 214 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 213, para. 75. 52