establishing the behavior that is penalized clearly and unambiguously and, on the other hand, it protects legal certainty.”89 115. The precision of a norm establishing a sanction of a disciplinary nature may be different from that required by the principle of legality in a criminal matter, owing to the nature of the disputes that each one is designed to resolve.90 However, it must be predictable, “either because the punishable conduct is expressly and clearly established, precisely, clearly and previously, by law, or because the law delegates its imposition to the judge or to an infra-legal norm, under objective criteria that limit the scope of discretion.”91 116. The obligation to justify decisions, translates as the "reasons justification" that allows the judge to arrive at a conclusion.92 That guarantee is closely related to the principle of legality since on the premise that the disciplinary grounds must be established in the State's legal framework in accordance with the above-describe standards, the justification for a ruling and certain administrative decisions should disclose “the facts, reasons and standards on which the authority for the decision was based.”93 In that regard, the justification for the punitive decision is what discloses how the facts supporting the proceeding align with or fall within the scope of the grounds invoked. On this point, in De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, the Court stressed the need that in all punitive decisions there be a link between the conduct of which the person is accused and the provision on which the decision is based.94 117. As regards the applicable penalty, the "principle of maximum severity" of the punishment of dismissal of a judge implies that it is only appropriate for "clearly reproachable conduct” and "genuinely serious reasons of misconduct or incompetence."95 The protection of judicial independence requires that the dismissal of judges be considered as the ultima ratio in judicial disciplinary matters.96 In its report Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators, the IACHR said: “Under international law, the penalty of suspension or removal must be applied only in the case of the most serious misconduct. As the Council of Europe recommended with respect to disciplinary offences, the disciplinary measures should become stricter as the seriousness of the offence increases, and can include removal of cases from a judge, assigning the judge other tasks, economic sanctions and suspension.”97 In addition, the Court held that the guarantee of tenure for 89IACHR, Application and submissions to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru; referenced in: I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004, Series C No. 115, par. 74. 90I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 257. 91I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 259. 92I/A Court H.R., Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, par. 87. 93IACHR, 94 115, par. 84. Report No. 103/13, Case 12.816, Report on Merits, Adan Guillermo Lopez Lone et al., Honduras, par. 145. I/A Court H.R., Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 95 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 259. 96 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 259; IACHR, Report No. 38/16, Case 12.768, Merits, Omar Francisco Canales Ciliezar, Honduras, August 31, 2016, pars. et seq. See also, IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators: Toward Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II Doc.44, December 5, 2013, par. 211. In that report, the IACHR considered: “Laws that establish administrative disciplinary measures such as dismissal must be subjected to the strictest test of legality. Such laws not only provide for extremely serious penalties and curtail the exercise of rights, but also create an exception to the principle of judicial stability and can compromise the principles of judicial independence and autonomy.” 97IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators: Toward Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II Doc.44, December 5, 2013, par. 211.