80. As to involvement of the interested parties, the Commission notes that both Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel closely followed and moved their cases forward. Based on the documentation submitted by the parties, in no way can it be construed that their activity has amounted to obstruction or unwarranted delay. 81. With respect to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the IACHR underscores the protracted length of time that each level of appeal took to hear the complaints filed by the plaintiffs and no information appears in the case file to justify such a span of time. The Commission notes that during the administrative phase of the cases, the requests of Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel were heard at different levels of consultation by several bodies. The IACHR notices that during this phase, said bodies in some instances took more than one year to issue an opinion on the dispute without providing good cause for the delays. The Commission also notes based on the documentation submitted by the parties that, during the judicial phase, no extensive investigation was conducted at the different levels of appeal of the cases. The IACHR further notes that the State did not provide any justification either for the delay in processing and ruling on these cases. 82. The Commission deems it unnecessary to rule on the fourth element in the instant case. 83. In short, the Commission finds that, in light of the particulars of the matter and the State’s failure to provide justification, the length of time of more than twelve years for the administrative and judicial proceedings to be completed surpasses any period of time that could be deemed as reasonable. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the Argentine State is responsible for violation of the guarantee of reasonable period of time, as established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel. In violating this right to due process of law in ruling on domestic remedies, the Commission concludes that this also constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection, as provided for in Article 25.1 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 2. Duty of sufficient justification of decisions as a protection of due process 84. Both the Inter-American Commission and Court have repeatedly held that, in general, the protections set forth under Article 8 of the American Convention do not only apply to criminal proceedings, but also to proceedings of other types.117 Specifically, as for proceedings in which rights or interests of persons are at stake, the “due process guarantees” set forth in Article 8.1 of the American Convention are applicable, including the right to sufficient grounds for decisions.118 85. The Inter-American Court has held that the duty to provide reasoned justification of decisions is one of the “due process guarantees” included in Article 8.1 to safeguard the right to due process of law.119 In this regard, said Court has specified that due justification of decisions “is the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.”120 The duty to provide grounds for decisions is a guarantee linked to proper administration of justice, which protects the right of citizens to be tried under reasons provided by law, and lends credibility to legal decisions in the framework of a democratic 117 IA Court of HR. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 69-70; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, para. 111. Also see: IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12.600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al “Magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102. 118 IA Court of HR. Case of Barbani Duarte et al v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 118; and Case of Claude Reyes et al v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 118. 119 IA Court of HR. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 118. 120 IA Court of HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 107. 17