society.121 Therefore, decisions adopted by national bodies that could affect human rights must be duly justified, because, otherwise, they would arbitrary decisions.122 As such, reasoning behind a ruling and certain administrative acts must make it possible to know what facts, grounds and laws or regulations the official used as the basis for making the decision, and thus be able to rule out any indicia of arbitrariness.123 Additionally, reasoned justification of decisions stands as proof to the parties that they have been heard and, in those instances that the decisions are appealable, provides them with an opportunity to criticize the ruling and conduct further examination into the matter at issue before higher decision-making bodies.124 86. Similarly, the IACHR has held that there is an intrinsic relationship between the existence of sufficient justification and the opportunity to challenge decisions and formulate an adequate defense within the framework of subsequent remedies.125 87. Based on the proven facts, Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel pursued administrative and judicial remedies to request payment of lost wages and benefits for the time of their deprivation of liberty and exile, respectively. Both at the administrative and judicial levels, the peremptory decisions denied the request based on Circular No. 5/77 of the General Secretariat of the Office of the President of the Nation, which establishes that payment of wages or salaries for periods of time in which public servants have not actually provided their services should not be made, unless an express provision of law so authorizes it. 88. The Commission notes that Mrs. Perrone’s and Mr. Preckel’s argument was that under Circular No. 5/77, payment of lost wages is indeed permitted when a provision of law so authorizes it. In support of this assertion, they cited that Article 14.c of the Rules on Leaves of Absence, Justifications and Exemptions of the Public Administration would be the provision of law that would authorize payment of lost wages, inasmuch as it allows for payment in “case of duly proven force majeure.” The IACHR notes that both of the plaintiffs contended that their arbitrary detention, which was acknowledged by the State, would be grounds to be counted as force majeure. 89. Without getting into a determination as to whether this argument is correct or not, which would go beyond the competence of the IACHR, inasmuch as it would be dealing with an issue of domestic law, the Commission notes that the argument was not manifestly unreasonable. This can be inferred from the fact that the Department of Legal Counsel of the DGI and the Directorate of Technical and Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Economy, each issued advisory opinions supporting making payment to Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel of their lost wages for the time they were arbitrarily detained. The Commission finds that the reasonableness of the argument, which is backed by the aforementioned entities, makes it all the more relevant to have sufficient and adequate justification for finding that this argument is groundless. 90. The Commission notes that the administrative decisions of the DGI and of the Ministry of Economy merely declared the claim of Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel to be groundless. The IACHR notices that in these decisions, no basis or grounds were provided for rejecting the arguments put forth in favor of the plaintiffs in the advisory opinions issued by the above-referenced Directorates. 91. In the sphere of judicial remedies, the Commission notes that the decisions issued by the Federal trial court Judge in February 1992 do not include any reference to the arguments put forth in the 121 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. 122 IA Court of HR. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, paras. 152 and 153. 123 122. Case of Claude Reyes et al v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 124 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. 125 IACHR, Report No. 42/14, Case 12.453, Merits, Olga Yolanda Maldonado Ordóñez, Guatemala, July 17, 2014, para. 98. 18