-3rights – in this case, the right to seek and receive specific information, in the terms of Article 13 of the Pact of San José – and, when issuing this decision, specific guarantees established in Article 8 of the Convention were not respected. This failure determined that in addition to infringing Article 13 on freedom of thought and expression, declared unanimously by the members of the Inter-American Court, there was also a violation of Article 8, according to the majority, although not according to two members of the Court, for whose opinion I have the highest esteem. Consequently, owing to the consideration that my colleagues merit – whether we agree or disagree – I wish to state my personal sections of view in a comparison of legitimate and constructive opinions. 11. Obviously, during the administrative stage of their démarches, the persons who requested information were not participating in a judicial hearing before a judge or court, but intervened in an administrative procedure before an administrative authority. Nevertheless, I consider that the latter was obliged to act as prescribed by Article 8, in all that was pertinent and applicable, to the extent that his decision would define the right of those requesting the information. 12. The need to respect the requirements of Article 8 does not derive, in my understanding, from the nature of the authority within the State’s structure, but from the nature of the function that the latter exercises in the specific case and from the transcendence that this can have in relation to the rights and obligations of the individual who appears before that authority, exercising what he considers is his right and awaiting the justified decision that should be taken on his request. 13. The decision of that administrative authority could be contested before a judicial body – as indeed was attempted – for the latter to take a final decision; and the guarantee established in Article 8(1) of the Convention was clearly applicable to the said judicial body. Nevertheless, it is also true that the existence of a means of controlling legality by resorting to law does not imply that the first step in the exercise of the power of decision on individual rights and obligations is removed from the procedural guarantees in exchange for those that exist when the second step of that exercise is undertaken - when proceedings have been filed before the judicial authorities. Strictly speaking, the guarantees must be respected at all stages, each of which leads, either provisionally or finally, to the determination of the rights. The control that the latter stage ensures to the individual does not justify disregarding these guarantees during the first stage (whatsoever leads to this), in the expectation that they will be respected subsequently. 14. Consequently, I consider that the guarantees established in Article 8, in keeping with their meaning in the Court’s current case law, do not apply only to the legal action or proceeding, but to the procedure on which the definition of rights and obligations depends, as I have stated repeatedly. Once again I emphasize that this applicability has the scope permitted by the characteristics of the corresponding procedure in each case. Hence, I refer to the obligation to provide justification and not to each and every one of the obligations established in Article 8, both literally and through the new scope that inter-American case law has established.