38 149. In the instant case, from the facts proven it was shown that the Judge of Law who handed down the judgment against Mr. Flor had been involved in an initial phase of the investigation process, when in his capacity as Zone Commander, one month before he issued that decision, it was he who had required Mr. Flor to hand over his responsibilities and his room in light of the investigation that was being carried out concerning him. In this regard, the IACHR considers that the decision of the court of law was influenced by the judge having had a preconceived notion of the matter in relation to Mr. Flor’s liability. 150. Based on the foregoing considerations, and mindful of the nature of the decision reached by the Court of Law and the importance of that decision on the imposition of the sanction of discharge to Homero Flor, the Commission considers that the guarantee of impartiality was violated and that accordingly there was a violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention in relation to the right of every person to be heard by an impartial judge or court. d. Alleged failure to set forth the reasoning of the decision 151. In this respect, the Commission takes into account that the duty to set forth the reasoning is included in the framework of the “due guarantees” established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, and based on which it is demanded that the decisions reached by domestic organs must state their grounds as a guarantee that the parties involved have been duly heard and that if appealable, that they can have “such decision reviewed by an appellate body,”139 so that those decisions do not turn out to be arbitrary, especially when they result in the impairment of fundamental rights.140 The Inter-American Court has indicated that the grounds are “the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.”141 152. The Inter-American Court has developed standards on this aspect following the case-law of the European Court, which has indicated that Article 6 of the European Convention requires domestic courts to state the reasoning of their judgments, yet it cannot necessarily be understood as an obligation to give a detailed response to each of the arguments raised by the parties; rather one should analyze the various arguments put forth before the decision-making body and the domestic legislation, among other considerations, in each specific case, mindful of the nature of the decision.142 In particular, the Inter-American Court has recognized this obligation vis-à-vis the decisions made by military organs, for example in cases referring to the denial of a promotion of an Army officer, by a resolution of the 139 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, para. 78; I/A Court H.R. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C. No. 193, para. 153; 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, para. 118. 140 I/A Court H.R. Yatama Case v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C. No. 127, para. 152; I/A Court H.R. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C. No. 233, para. 141. 141 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, para. 77. 142 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Hiro Balani v. Spain. Judgment of December 9, 1994, para. 27; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Hurk v. Netherlands. Judgment of April 19, 1994, para. 61.