B.1. Right to judicial guarantees 63. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that although Article 8 of the American Convention is entitled “Judicial Guarantees,” its application is not limited to judicial remedies in the strict sense, “but [to] the set of procedural requirements that must be observed” 63 so that individuals can adequately defend themselves against any act of the State that could affect their rights. Thus, due process of law must be respected in any act or omission on the part of State bodies in any proceeding, whether of an administrative, punitive or jurisdictional nature. 64 64. In accordance with Article 8(1) of the Convention, in the determination of rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal or of any other nature, individuals have the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial judge or tribunal, previously established by law. Failure to comply with any of these guarantees implies the violation of said conventional provision. 65 65. Thus, in any matter, even in labor and administrative matters, the discretion of the administration has limits that may not be exceeded, one such limit being respect for human rights. 66 The Court has indicated that any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, whose decisions could affect the rights of individuals, must adopt such decisions with full respect for the guarantees of due legal process. 67 In this regard, Article 8 of the Convention establishes the guidelines of due process of law, which refers to the set of procedural requirements that must be observed so that individuals can adequately defend themselves in the face of any act by the State that could affect their rights. 68 66. For its part, Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes the minimum guarantees that must be ensured by States in accordance with due process of law. 69 In its case law, the Court has ruled on the scope of this article and has established that it is not limited to criminal proceedings, but has been extended, where pertinent, to administrative processes before State authorities and to judicial proceedings of a non-criminal nature in the constitutional, administrative and labor areas. 70 Likewise, it has indicated that, both in these and in other types of matters, “the individual Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 if October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, para. 66. 63 64 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 124 and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 66. 65 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 117, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 67. 66 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 126, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 88. 67 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 88. 68 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 69, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 88. 69 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 137, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 152. Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218; 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, Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary 70 21