because the reason why Mr. Cordero Bernal was dismissed did not signify the exclusion of criminal responsibility. B. Considerations of the Court 70. The Court recalls that, in this case, it is examining the dismissal of a provisional judge, temporarily appointed to the First Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Huánuco; a dismissal that occurred as a result of a disciplinary proceeding against him. It will therefore proceed to examine: (1) the guarantee of judicial independence in relation to the principle of legality, political rights and the guarantee of duly substantiated decisions, and (2) the principle of the application of the most favorable punitive law. B.1 The guarantee of judicial independence in relation to the principle of legality, political rights and the guarantee of duly substantiated decisions 71. This Court has established that judges have specific guarantees owing to the independence required by the Judiciary, which has been understood to be essential for the exercise of their function. In this regard, it has asserted that one of the main purposes of the separation of public powers is the guarantee of judicial independence. This autonomous exercise must be guaranteed by the State in both its institutional aspect, that is in relation to the Judiciary as a system, and in its individual aspect; in other words, in relation to the person of the specific judge.79 The purpose of this protection is to prevent the judicial system, in general, and its members, in particular, from being subject to potential undue restrictions in the exercise of their function by organs outside the Judiciary, or even by those who exercise functions of review or appeal.80 72. The Court has also indicated that judicial independence gives rise to guarantees: (a) to tenure and irremovability from office; (b) to an adequate process of appointment, and (c) to be protected from external pressures.81 Regarding the guarantee of tenure and irremovability from office, the Court has considered that this, in turn, means that: (i) the separation of judges from office must be exclusively as a result of the permitted grounds, either through procedures that comply with judicial guarantees or because the mandate has concluded; (ii) judges may only be dismissed on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence, and (iii) any procedure must be decided pursuant to the established rules on judicial conduct and in accordance with fair procedures ensuring objectivity and impartiality The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), in its Opinion No. 3 (2002) on “Principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality” emphasized that “the independence of the judge is an essential principle and is the right of the citizens of each State, including its judges. It has both an institutional and an individual aspect. […].” Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). Opinion No. 3 (2002), para. 16. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/168070098d. 79 Cf. 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, para. 55, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 84. 80 Cf. Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 68 and Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001, para. 75. See also: mutatis Mutandis, Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 95. On this matter, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a judgment of June 24, 2019, indicated: “In particular, that freedom of the judges from all external intervention or pressure, which is essential, requires, as the Court has held on several occasions, certain guarantees appropriate for protecting the individuals who have the task of adjudicating in a dispute, such as guarantees against removal from office.” Court of Justice of the European Union. Judgment of June 24, 2019, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531, paragraph 75. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/ juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=215341&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1 &cid=1961447. 81 18