subject to influences, incentives, threats or interference, either directly or indirectly, but only and exclusively in accordance with – and motivated by – the law.”17 18. In cases concerning proceedings under the military justice system, the Court has explored the guarantee of judicial independence and impartiality as an obligation of the State and a right of the individual.18 In these cases, it has determined that both the prosecution of civilians by military courts, and the prosecution of military and police personnel for human rights violations under this system violates the right to an ordinary judge established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. In such cases, the Inter-American Court has focused its analysis on both the independence and impartiality of the judges who intervene, and also their lack of material competence to hear this type of case.19 19. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has ruled on alleged violations of judicial independence and impartiality, over and above the concerns relating to prosecution by military courts. In recent years, the Court has done this in the cases of: Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela, Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador , the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, and J. v. Peru.20 20. The Court has emphasized that one of the main purposes of the separation of public powers is the guarantee of the independence of judges, which is intended to avoid the judicial system in general, and its members in particular, possibly being subject to undue constraints in the exercise of their function from organs outside the Judiciary or even from those judges who occupy functions of review or appeal. The Inter-American Court has understood that the independence of the Judiciary is “essential for the exercise of the judicial function.” In accordance with its consistent case law, the Inter-American Court has considered that the following guarantees arise from judicial independence: an adequate appointment procedure; tenure in office, and a guarantee against external pressure. The Court has referred to the right to an 17 Supra footnote 16. 18 Cf., among others, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251. 19 In particular, see the “Foreword” by Diego García-Sayán, which provides an overview of the InterAmerican Court’s most important case law on this matter, in the volume by Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Eduardo and Silva García, Fernando, Jurisdicción Militar y Derechos Humanos. El Caso Radilla ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Mexico, Porrúa-UNAM, 2011. 20 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, paras. 189 to 192 and 234 to 238; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 94 to 99 and sixth operative paragraph; Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, paras. 54 to 67; Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, paras. 143 to 180 and third operative paragraph; Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, paras. 219 to 222 and second and third operative paragraphs, and J v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, paras. 181 to 189 and third operative paragraph. 6