responsibility the State when the domestic courts have not been given the opportunity to settle a dispute or remedy an alleged human rights violation. 150. The State also argued that it is not internationally responsible for a breach of the duty to state reasons for judicial decisions. In this sense, it considered that the Court of Appeals of San Miguel guaranteed Ms. Pavez’s right to obtain a reasoned decision inasmuch as it presented different elements that reflect the incorporation and materialization of this right. Therefore, it considered that the decision was related to the nature of the appeal, and to the nature of the issues raised. Regarding the decision of the Supreme Court of Chile, it felt that the different considerations put forward by the Court of Appeals of San Miguel were accurately taken up and that the expression “having seen, the judgment appealed is upheld” is a formula that signifies that the Court, having assessed the background of the case, assumes as its own the substantive considerations expressed by the court of first instance. It also recalled that the basis for this procedure is expressly provided for in Chilean law and that this provision of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been challenged on the grounds that it is unconstitutional or contrary to judicial guarantees or judicial protection. 170 B. Considerations of the Court 151. The Commission and the representatives alleged that the State had violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection for two reasons: due to the lack of effectiveness of the appeal filed by Sandra Pavez Pavez and due to the failure to state the reasons for the decision. 152. This Court has reiterated that the judicial guarantees included in Article 8(1) of the Convention are closely linked to due process of law, which “encompasses the conditions that must be met to ensure the adequate defense of those whose rights or obligations are under judicial consideration.” In relation to the duty to state reasons, this Court has pointed out that the grounds are the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached. 171 The duty to state grounds is a guarantee linked to the proper administration of justice, which protects the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons provided by law, while giving credibility to the legal decisions adopted in a democratic society. 172 By virtue of this, the decisions adopted by national bodies that could affect human rights must be duly justified, otherwise they would be arbitrary decisions. 173 153. Regarding the right to obtain duly justified decisions, the Court has reiterated that the grounds are “the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached” and that implies a rational presentation of the reasons that led the judge to take a decision. The duty to state grounds for decisions is a guarantee arising from Article 8(1) of the Convention, linked to the proper administration of justice, as it protects the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons provided by law and gives credibility to the legal decisions adopted within the framework of a democratic society. 174 154. Thus, a reasoned decision demonstrates to the parties that they have been heard and, when the decision is subject to appeal, it affords them the possibility to challenge it, and to have the decision 170 In this regard, it considered that if it were to accept the criterion expressed by the Commission, the Chilean Supreme Court would be obliged to change its practices and rule on any claim of alleged infringement of rights through long, complex and detailed rulings (as a mere formality) and despite the fact that the lower courts had correctly processed addressed the legal disputes before them, and without the Supreme Court having anything new to contribute, as in fact occurred in the present case. 171 Cf. 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, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 148. 172 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 77, and Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 122. 173 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 152, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 89. 174 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 77, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 136. 39