complaints, particularly regarding the applicability of the concept of “force majeure” as provided for in Article 14.c of the Rules on Leaves of Absence, Justifications and Exemptions of the National Public Administration. 92. This failure to provide sufficient justification continued both in the judgment of the Chamber of Appeals of November 1992, in the case of Mr. Preckel, as well as in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 1996, in the case of Mrs. Perrone. In these decisions, while the judicial authorities did mention the Rules on Leaves of Absence, Justifications and Exemptions of the National Public Administration, they only noted said normative body was not applicable as one of the exceptions established in Circular No. 5/77, and gave no reasons for reaching said conclusion. In particular, the IACHR notes that in said decisions no grounds were provided for the crux of the dispute, that is, in what way did the situation of arbitrary detention of both of the plaintiffs not constitute a “case of force majeure.” The Commission reiterates that in keeping with one of the due process guarantees, domestic authorities must examine “fully and genuinely” the claims and arguments of the affected person,126 which has a special connection to the duty to provide sufficient and adequate justification of decisions, the content of which was described above. 93. Lastly, the Commission notes that in both the administrative and judicial decisions, the context in which Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel made their requests was not examined. Taking into consideration that their absence from work was a result of arbitrary detention and torture in the case of both victims, and of exile in the case of Mr. Preckel, the Commission finds that the administrative and judicial authorities were obligated to consider in their decisions that the claim arose from and was related to the effects of serious human rights violations. On the contrary, the approach taken by all of the decision-making bodies was to regard the case as an ordinary labor claim. The IACHR finds that it was relevant for the authorities to take these facts into account when issuing their decisions. 94. Based on the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the judicial and administrative authorities violated the right to sufficient and adequate justification of decision, established as one of the due process guarantees enshrined in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel. Consequently, because this guarantee of due process in decisions on domestic remedies has been violated, the Commission concludes that this has also constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection, as established in Article 25.1 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. VI. CONCLUSIONS 95. In view of the preceding considerations of fact and law, the Commission concludes that the State of Argentina is responsible for the violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 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. 96. As to the rights established in the other provisions included in the admissibility report, the Commission finds that there is not sufficient evidence to establish international responsibility of the Argentine State with regard to them. VII. 97. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THE STATE OF ARGENTINA TO 126 IACHR, Report No. 42/14, Case 12.453, Merits, Olga Yolanda Maldonado Ordóñez, Guatemala, July 17, 2014, para. 89. Also see: Corte IDH. Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 181; and 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. 120. 19