-50120. The Court has established that decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect human rights should be duly justified; otherwise, they would be arbitrary decisions.97 121. It has been proved (supra para. 57(17)) that, in response to the request for State-held information made by Mr. Claude Reyes and Mr. Longton Guerrero, the Executive Vice President of the Foreign Investment Committee decided to refuse to provide part of the information. As this Court has found (supra paras. 88 to 103), the decision adopted by this official adversely affected the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression of Marcel Claude Reyes and Arturo Longton Guerrero. 122. In this case, the State’s administrative authority responsible for taking a decision on the request for information did not adopt a duly justified written decision, which would have provided information regarding the reasons and norms on which he based his decision not to disclose part of the information in this specific case and established whether this restriction was compatible with the parameters embodied in the Convention. Hence, this decision was arbitrary and did not comply with the guarantee that it should be duly justified protected by Article 8(1) of the Convention. 123. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the said decision of the administrative authority violated the right to judicial guarantees embodied in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes and Arturo Longton Guerrero. 2) Application of Article 8(1) of the Convention in relation to the decision of the Santiago Court of Appeal and the right to a simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, established in Article 25(1) of the Convention 124. Article 25(1) of the Convention stipulates that: 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. 125. Article 2 establishes that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 126. The Court has established that all State bodies which exercise functions of a substantially jurisdictional nature have the obligation to adopt just decisions based on full respect for the guarantee of due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention.98 97 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne case, supra note 72, para. 216; and Case of YATAMA case, supra note 86, para. 152. Also, cf. García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I; and Eur. Court H.R., Case of H. v. Belgium, Judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B, para. 53. 98 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 72, para. 164; Case of YATAMA, supra note 86, para. 149; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 72, para. 104.