[…] of the reading given to the text of Articles [105 and 122 of the LOCGRSNCF ], it is clear that the imposition of sanctions established therein, require as the sole and exclusive criterion: a) the declaration of administrative responsibility of the person investigated; and b) that this decision be final in the administrative forum. In this sense, the sanctions, are legal consequences of the Law, derived from the declaration of responsibility, once it has become final in the administrative forum.242 […] that the cause for the administrative actions, requires the compliance of the following specifications: a) that the factual and legal foundations of the administrative action be expressly indicated, which includes pointing out the facts and law, inherent in the particular case. These circumstances refer to the specifics indicated: i) reference to the legal elements in the record supporting the decision and, ii) the analysis of the allegations made by the individual, and iii) the regulatory basis that establishes the decision. b) that, in general, from text of the decision, the reasons behind the issuance of an administrative act are evident, regarding which there is no need for a comprehensive or detailed exposition of the non-essential aspects or specifications regarding the reason or legal basis of the action.243 146. In this regard, the Court notes that the two resolutions of the Comptroller for disqualification focused on highlighting the facts from which Mr. López Mendoza was found responsible by the Director of the Office of the Determination of Responsibility (supra paras. 60 and 83). While the Court believes that the duty to provide cause does not require a detailed response to each and every one of the arguments of the parties, 244 the Court finds that the Comptroller General was to respond and independently support its reasons, and not merely to refer to previous declarations of responsibility. Indeed, from a reading of those decisions, the Court finds no concrete analysis of the relationship between the severity of the facts and the effect on the collectivity, on public ethics, and on administrative morals. 147. Although the State argues "the high degree of involvement that [the] conduct of [Mr. López Mendoza] had on the values of public ethics and administrative morals, as well as the negative impact that his behavior as a public official had on the community,” (supra para. 103), the Court notes that the domestic decisions did not establish these aspects with sufficient accuracy. The Court considers that given the scope of the restriction on the right to stand in an election involved in a disqualification to run as a candidate, the Comptroller had a obligation to provide explicit cause for the decision, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Comptroller was to develop specific reasons and grounds regarding the seriousness and magnitude of the fault allegedly committed by Mr. López Mendoza and the proportionality of the sanction imposed. Moreover, the Court also considers that a proper reason for imposing the disqualification provides assurance that 242 Resolution N° 01-00-00004 of January 9, 2006, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic, supra note 94, folio 412. 243 Resolution N° 01-00-00005 of January 9, 2006, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic, supra note 155, folios 428 and 429. 244 The European Court has noted that: “The Court reiterates that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) obliges the courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see the Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, para. 61). The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision. It is moreover necessary to take into account, inter alia, the diversity of the submissions that a litigant may bring before the courts and the differences existing in the Contracting States with regard to statutory provisions, customary rules, legal opinion and the presentation and drafting of judgments. That is why the question whether a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, deriving from Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention, can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. Cf. ECHR, Case Hiro Balani v. Spain, Judgment of December 9th of 1994, Series A no. 303-B, p. 8, § 27. 60