-49113. The Court will first examine whether the administrative decision was adopted in accordance with the guarantee of due justification protected by Article 8(1) of the Convention. Then, the Court will determine whether the judicial decision complied with this guarantee and whether, in the instant case, Chile guaranteed the right to a simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, embodied in Article 25(1) of the Convention. 1) Application of Article 8(1) of the Convention in relation to the decision of the administrative body 114. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 115. The Court will now consider whether, in the instant case, Chile complied with the guarantee of justifying the decision not to provide part of the requested information adopted by the Vice President of the Foreign Investment Committee. 116. Article 8 of the American Convention applies to all the requirements that must be observed by procedural instances, whatsoever their nature, to ensure that the individual may defend himself adequately with regard to any act of the State that may affect his rights.94 117. According to the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention, when determining the rights and obligations of the individual of a criminal, civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature, “due guarantees” must be observed that ensure the right to due process in the corresponding procedure.95 Failure to comply with one of these guarantee results in a violation of this provision of the Convention. 118. Article 8(1) of the Convention does not apply merely to judges and judicial courts. The guarantees established in this provision must be observed during the different procedures in which State entities adopt decisions that determine the rights of the individual, because the State also empowers administrative, collegiate, and uni-personal authorities to adopt decisions that determine rights. 119. Consequently, the guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention are also applicable when a public authority adopts decisions that determine such rights,96 bearing in mind that, although the guarantees inherent in a jurisdictional body are not required of him, he must comply with the guarantees designed to ensure that his decision is not arbitrary. 94 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 86, para. 147; Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 72, para. 102; Case of Baena Ricardo et al.. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 124; and the Case of Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69. 95 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 86, paras. 148-164; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 94, paras. 127-134. 96 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 86, para. 149; Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 72, para. 105; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 94, para. 124.