3. Right to an impartial disciplinary forum 38 and the right to judicial protection39 68. The IACHR recalls that “the authorities that handle disciplinary proceedings must always ensure the guarantees of independence, competence and impartiality, as this is a materially jurisdictional function and a condition sine qua non of due process, regardless of whether the disciplinary authority is a formal court.”40 69. Regarding the impartiality of the disciplinary authority, the IACHR has indicate that it requires that intervening authority approach the facts of the case objectively, without any preconceived notions or bias, and that it offer sufficient objective guarantees to dispel any doubt that the accused or the community might harbor with respect to the absence of impartiality.41 Impartiality of the forum means that its members do not have a direct interest, have not taken a position, have no preference for any of the parties, and are not involved in the dispute.42 Like the European Court, the inter-American system “has found that personal or subjective impartiality is to be presumed unless there is proof to the contrary. For its part, the so-called objective approach consists of determining whether the authority that performed the jurisdictional functions offered guarantees sufficient to preclude any legitimate doubt or suspicions as to the authority’s prejudice or bias.”43 70. Finally, the IACHR recalls that States have a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to people who allege having been victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which should be in accordance with the rules of legal due process (Article 8(1)). For a remedy to exist, it is not enough for it to be provided for by law; rather, it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.44 71. The Commission observes that in this case, after the alleged victim sent his paper to the Supreme Court, the court forwarded it to the La Serena Appellate Court. Likewise, on December 27, 2004, the Supreme Court returned the alleged victim’s paper “because the referenced report includes appraisals deemed unsuitable and unacceptable for this tribunal.” 72. The IACHR recalls that it was the Supreme Court itself, which had already made a value judgment of the content of the paper, that heard the appeal of the sanction imposed on the alleged victim, meaning the court had already take a position on whether the alleged victim sending his paper to the Supreme Court merited some kind of rebuke. For these reasons, the IACHR concludes that the Supreme Court does not meet the conditions of impartiality for deciding on appeal whether the disciplinary sanction against the alleged victim was merited. 73. The Commission likewise concludes that this demonstrates that the alleged victim did not have an effective remedy for appealing the decision to sanction him, in keeping with the rules of due process. The Commission also observes that on hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Justice did not protect Mr. 38 Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes that, 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 39 Article 25(1) of the American Convention stipulates that: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 40IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 188. 41IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 200. 42 IACHR Report No. 103/13, Case 12,816, Merits, Adán Guillermo Lopez Lone et al., Honduras, November 5, 2013, para.136. 43IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 200. 44 Inter-American Court, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Para. 125; Inter-American Court, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125. Para. 61; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Five Pensioners.” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98. Para. 136. 12