set out in the Constitution or the law.82 73. Regarding this matter, article 14 of the Statute of the Ibero-American Judge indicates the following: Article 14. Principle of non-removal from office. As a guarantee of their independence, judges cannot be removed from the moment in which they acquire the said status and join the judicial career in the terms established by the Constitution. Nevertheless, they can be suspended or separated from office owing to physical or mental incapacity, or negative evaluation of their professional performance in the cases established by law, or separated from office in case of criminal or disciplinary responsibility by legally established bodies, by means of procedures guaranteeing respect for due process and, in particular, the rights to a hearing, defense, contradiction and legal remedies, as appropriate. 74. Regarding the facts that are the purpose of this case, the Court recalls that Mr. Cordero Bernal was appointed Provisional Judge of the Fourth Criminal Court of the province of Huánuco by a decision of November 15, 1994, issued by the Superior Court of Justice of that province. That decision did not specify the terms of his appointment. Then, he was dismissed by a decision of August 14, 1996, of the National Council of the Judiciary because he had committed the disciplinary offense contained in article 31.2 of the Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary, which established the sanction of dismissal for “[c]omitting a serious act that, without being a crime, compromises the dignity of the office and devalues it in the opinion of the public.” Thus, in this case the guarantees of the tenure and irremovability of judges appointed on a provisional basis is relevant. 75. This Court has established that the separation from office of provisional judges should be for reasons established by law, whether these are: (i) the occurrence of the resolutive condition to which the appointment or designation was subject, or the expiry of a predetermined period owing to the holding and conclusion of a public competition, based on which the permanent replacement of the provisional judge was appointed or designated, or (ii) serious disciplinary offenses or proven incompetence, as defined in paragraph 72 of this judgment.83 76. For her part, the then Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, indicated in reports submitted in 2013 and 2014 that, although judges may be subject to disciplinary proceedings for conducts that bring judicial office into disrepute or that violate judicial ethics,84 disciplinary offenses that refer in general terms to “threat or Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 77, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 85. Several international bodies and courts have also ruled on the guarantee of stability and non-removal from office, as well as the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the Statute of the Ibero-American Judge. This Court has incorporated its criteria and, also, has asserted that the free removal of judges gives rise to an objective doubt about their real possibility of deciding specific disputes without fear of reprisals. Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 20; Human Rights Committee, Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka (Communication No. 1376/2005), UN Doc. CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005, Views adopted on July 24, 2008, para. 7.3; Court of Justice of the European Union, supra; Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), Opinion No. 1 (2001), paras. 16 and 6, and Principles 12, 17, 18 and 19 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 82 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 43, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 148. See also: mutatis mutandis, Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 99, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 81. 83 In this regard, the Special Rapporteur indicated: “judges should not be removed or punished for bona fide errors or for disagreeing with a particular interpretation of the law. Judges and prosecutors can be justifiably disciplined, suspended or removed from office for persistent failure to perform their duties, habitual intemperance, wilful misconduct in office, conduct which brings judicial office into disrepute or substantial violation of judicial ethics.” Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul. 84 19