40. The IACHR has asserted that the principle of judicial independence is a requisite inherent to a democratic system and a fundamental prerequisite for the protection of human rights.22 It is enshrined as one of the due process guarantees protected by Article 8.1 of the American Convention and, additionally, “reinforced”23 guarantees emanate from said principle, which States must provide to judges in order to ensure their independence. 24 The bodies of the Inter-American system have interpreted the principle of judicial independence to include the following guarantees: a suitable appointment process, tenure in office and guarantee against external pressures.25 41. Specifically, with respect to guarantees to ensure tenure, the Court has held that proceedings that culminate in the removal of a justice operator must be conducted in a way that is compatible with the principle of judicial independence. This means that States must ensure that all persons who discharge judicial duties have guarantees of reinforced stability, meaning that dismissal or cessation of a judge from his or her office may proceed based on two fundamental reasons: i. for engaging in “clearly punishable” conduct, “the most serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence,” 26 or ii. because the time period or condition established in the appointment has lapsed or been fulfilled. Provisional appointment is not the same as discretionary removal and must not involve any change in the guarantees for proper performance of the judge and must safeguard the claimants themselves.27 42. Stability in office of justice operators is closely linked to protection against external or internal pressure, inasmuch as if operators do not have job security over a certain period of time, they will be vulnerable to pressure from different sectors, mainly from those who have the power to decide on their dismissal. 43. Consequently, the Commission reiterates that States must ensure that all persons who serve in the judicial function have guarantees of reinforced stability, meaning that, except for when they commit serious disciplinary offenses, stability in office must be respected for the period of time or under the condition established in the appointment, regardless of whether they are career judges or hold temporary or provisional appointments to a judicial function. Such temporary or provisional appointments must be set for a specific period of time or under a specific condition for the discharge of the judgeship, in order to ensure that these judges will not be removed from office based on the rulings they hand down or based on arbitrary decisions of administrative or judicial entities. The appointment of justice operators without a time period or conditionality clause in their appointment must be considered incompatible with the international obligations of a State in the area of judicial independence and cannot be argued as an excuse to not afford the guarantees of due process in a decision for removal IACHR, Report on the Merits 12.816, Report No. 103/13, November 5, 2013, par. 112. Citing United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32, CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, par.19. Also see: Habeas Corpus under Suspension of Guarantees (articles. 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, par. 30. Also see, IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, III. Separation and Independence of Public Powers, December 30, 2009. Par. 80. 23 IA Court of HR. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, par. 67; IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights, December 30, 2009, par. 185; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, December 31, 2011, par. 359. 24 Thus, for example, the Inter-American Court has held that “rights for judges” emanate in turn from the State’s obligations for justiciable claims subject to proceedings before courts. Regarding these rights, the Court has written that “the guarantee of not being subjected to discretionary removal means that disciplinary and punitive proceedings of judges must respect due process guarantees and an effective recourse must be offered to those harmed.” IA Court of HR. Case of Apitz Barberaet at al (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, par. 147. 25IACHR, Report on Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, pars. 56, 109 and 184; IA Court of HR. Case of López Lone et al v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, par. 191. 26 IA Court of HR. Case of López Lone et al v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, par. 259. 27 IA Court of HR. Case of Apitz Barbera et al (“The First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, par. 43. 22 8