46 Court has held in cases related to judges’ dismissal from office, “[t]he right to defense obliges the State to treat the individual at all times as a true subject of the procedure, in the broadest sense of that concept, and not simply as an object of it.”235 145. The duty to state the reasons for a decision is one of the “due guarantees” provided for in Article 8(1) of the Convention to safeguard the right to a fair trial.236 The obligation to give a reasoned judgment “is a guarantee related to the correct administration of justice, which protects the right of the people to be tried for the reasons established by law and lends credibility to judicial decisions in a democratic society.”237 According to the Inter-American Court, decisions in disciplinary cases must spell out the precise misconduct and lay out the arguments necessary to conclusively make the case that the “comments” carry sufficient weight to warrant a judge’s removal from his or her post.238 Furthermore, it is vital that the ruling in a disciplinary case be a reasoned judgment, since the purpose of disciplinary oversight is to assess the conduct, qualifications and performance of a public official; ultimately, the judgment’s reasoning is where the seriousness of the misconduct and the proportionality of the sanction are analyzed.239 146. In the instant case, the Commission has already concluded that the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the victims were in violation of Article 313 of the Honduran Constitution, with the result that it was difficult to determine who the competent authority was for each phase of the process and ascertain the “nature” of the decisions each one issued and whether it was definitive. The uncertainty this created affected the right of the judges and magistrate to prepare an adequate defense. 147. The Commission also observes that even under the model disciplinary rules applied ad hoc in this case, the alleged victims would not have had an opportunity to prepare an adequate defense and be heard by the Court first and then by the Council. 148. The Commission notes that in the Supreme Court’s proceedings, it reached its decision to order the victims’ dismissal based on a report provided by the Office of the Director of Personnel Management; these proceedings were not conducted as a trial would be, and the victims were not given an opportunity to present their case and defend themselves against the charges and accusations that the Office of the Director of Personnel Management made against them. This meant that the judges and magistrate never received a hearing before the SCJ and never had a chance to defend themselves before it. 234 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, adopted as part of the Report on Activities of the African Commission at the Second Summit and Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union, held in Maputo, July 4 to 12, 2003. See Section A. General Principles Applicable to All Legal Proceedings. A.r) Independent Tribunal. 235 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, paragraph 121. 236 I/A Court H.R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, paragraph 78. 237 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, paragraph 118. 238 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, paragraph 120. 239 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, paragraph 120.