finds that the fact that he would be punished based on a disciplinary grounds that indicated that the action was not criminal even as, parallel to this, he was being prosecuted criminally for the same facts, is also not compatible with the principle of legality. 84. Based on these considerations, the IACHR finds that the Peruvian State violated Article 9 of the American Convention, in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Humberto Cajahuanca Vásquez. 3. The principle of judicial independence and the right to well-founded decisions51 85. As regards the duty to justify, the jurisprudence of the inter-American system has found that this means a “reasoned justification” that enables the judge to reach a conclusion. 52 The Court has found that this “is a guarantee linked to the proper administration of justice, protecting the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons provided by Law, and giving credibility to the legal decisions adopted in the framework of a democratic society.” 53 According to the Inter-American Court, administrative disciplinary resolutions must include a precise description of what constitutes an infraction and provide reasoning allowing for the conclusion that what happened was enough to justify removing a State official from his or her office. 54 Additionally, the requirement of an adequate justification is extremely relevant, as the purpose of disciplinary oversight is to assess the conduct, suitability, and performance of a public official, and therefore, it is in the justification where the gravity of the alleged conduct—and thus the proportionality of the sanction—is analyzed.55 86. In order to evaluate compliance with this guarantee in this case, and taking into account that the disciplinary sanction imposed on Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez was based on a procedure for granting leave to a judge and appoint his substitute, in his capacity as president of the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco, the Commission views it as pertinent to point to several standards on the subject of judicial independence. 87. In the case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela, the Court found that “international law has developed guidelines on the valid grounds for the suspension or removal of a judge, which may include, among others, misconduct or incompetence.”56 Specifically, it indicated that: (...) under (...) international law there are, on the one hand, the remedies of appeal, cassation, review, removal of cases to a higher court or the like, which are aimed at verifying that a lower court’s decisions are correct, and, on the other, there is disciplinary oversight, which is intended to assess the conduct, suitability, and performance of the judge as a public official. (...) This sort of review requires an autonomous reason warranting a finding that a disciplinary offense has been committed.57 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. 52 IACHR. Report No. 72/17. Case 13,019. Merits Report Eduardo Rico. Argentina. July 5, 2017 Para. 116; and Inter-American Court, Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 87. 53 Inter-American Court. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, párr.118. 51 Inter-American Court. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 120. 54 Inter-American Court. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 120. 55 Inter-American Court. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 84. Citing. Cfr. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32, supra footnote 58, para. 20. Also see Principle 18 of the Basic Principles of the United Nations, supra footnote 59. 57 Inter-American Court. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. Para. 86. 56 16