When public employees make administrative decisions affecting individuals, they exercise governmental power. The subjects affected by these decisions are often in a vulnerable position, generating an asymmetrical power relationship, which is why reason-giving – justifications – for administrative decisions serves a central role in communicating why a certain decision was taken. The aims of this article are to clarify the legal and philosophical reasons why public authorities have an obligation to justify the decisions they make and explore whether providing reasons for decisions can be seen as a human right. We do this by critically examining the obligation's legal and moral foundations, and we subsequently discuss to what extent it is reasonable to consider it a human right to have decisions justified. We conclude that when sufficient reasons for a decision are missing, the affected individual is deprived of crucial information, impairing their capacity to assess on what grounds the decision was taken, which we argue is a violation of their right to moral autonomy and self-government, and ultimately a violation of their right to justification.