procedural rules and replace the jurisdiction that is normally attributed to ordinary courts. This seeks to prevent individuals from being tried by special or ad hoc tribunals.204 119. With regard to the principle of judicial independence, the organs of the Inter-American System have indicated that it is an inherent requirement of a democratic system and a fundamental prerequisite for the protection of human rights. 205 Both the Commission and the Court have interpreted the principle of judicial independence as incorporating the following minimum tenets: a proper appointment’s process, tenure in office and guarantee against external pressure.206 120. The right to be judged by both competent and independent authority underlines the importance of establishing by law a process of selection and appointment with the purpose of selecting and appointing the members of the judiciary based on merit and professional capacities. 207 These procedures must establish objective selection and appointment criteria. 208 The IACHR has pointed out that public competitive and merit examinations, using methods such as examinations, make possible an objective assessment and qualification of the professional capacity and merits of the candidates for the positions.209 121. The right to be tried by an impartial authority demands that the intervening authority approach the facts of the case free from prejudice, and offering sufficient guarantees of an objective nature, so as to remove any doubts that the accused or society might have regarding any lack of impartiality. 210 In that sense, personal or subjective impartiality is presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary. 211 The socalled objective test consists in determining whether the authority which carried out the judicial functions provided convincing evidence to eliminate legitimate fears or well-founded suspicion of bias. 212 The InterAmerican Court has emphasized the importance of the recusation of judges as a remedy to challenge their impartiality.213 204 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 75. 205 IACHR, Report on the Merits 12. 816, Report No. 103/13, November 5, 2013, para. 112. Citing see, UN Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32, CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para.19. See in this sense, cf. Habeas corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 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, para. 30. See also, IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, III. Independence and Separation of Public Powers, December 30, 2009. para. 80. 206IACHR, Report on the Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, paras. 56, 109 and 184, I/A Court H.R. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 191. 207 IACHR, Report on the Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, recommendation 6. 208 IACHR, Report on the Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, recommendation 6. 209 IACHR, Report on the Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, recommendation 6. 210 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 73. 211 IACHR, Report on the Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, para. 201. 212 IACHR, Report on the Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, para. 201. 213 I/A Court H.R. 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, paras. 59-67 and 253. 29