in accordance with the legally established procedure to hear and decide the case submitted to it.”39 And, of special importance for the instant case, it considered: 69. Although Article 8 of the American Convention is entitled “Judicial Guarantees” [in the Spanish version - “Right to a Fair Trial” in the English version], its application is not strictly limited to judicial remedies, “but rather the procedural requirements that should be observed in order to be able to speak of effective and appropriate judicial guarantees” so that a person may defend himself adequately in the face of any kind of act of the State that affects his rights. 70. The Court has already established that, although this article does not establish minimum guarantees in matters relating to the determination of rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature, the full range of minimum guarantees stipulated in the second paragraph of this article are also applicable in those areas and, therefore, in this type of matter, the individual also has the overall right to the due process applicable in criminal matters40 (underlining added).41 31. Furthermore, it found that the remedy of amparo that was filed against the removal decision was not decided within a reasonable time or by an impartial judge. 42 32. In the case Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela, the ICourtHR examined the dismissal of the former provisional judges of the First Contentious Administrative Court, because they had committed an inexcusable judicial error of granting a precautionary amparo that suspended the effects of an administrative decision that had denied the registration of a sale. In that case, the Inter-American Court observed that States are obliged to ensure that provisional judges are independent and, consequently, must grant them certain stability and permanence in office, because the temporary nature of their posting is not equivalent to removal at any time. In addition, the temporary nature should not entail any changes in the system of guarantees of the performance of the judge and the safeguard of the defendants.43 Indeed, for the ICourtHR, an appropriate appointment procedure and an established term of office are ways of guaranteeing the independence of judges. 44 33. Moreover, the Court repeated that the authority in charge of the proceeding to dismiss a judge must act impartially in the procedure established to this end, and permit the exercise of the right of defense, 45 in addition to being an independent court.46 It also recalled that all the organs that exercise functions of a substantially jurisdictional nature are obliged to adopt just decision based on full respect for the guarantees of due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention.47 39 Ibidem, para. 77. 40 Cf. Case of Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 149. 41 Para. 167 of the judgment that prompts this opinion, in relation to the minimum guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, also refers to the precedent of the Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 125 to 129. 42 Case of the Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru, Merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C, No. 71, paras. 93 and 96. 43 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, para. 43. 44 Ibidem, para. 138. 45 Ibidem, para. 44. 46 Ibidem, para. 137. 47 Ibidem, para. 46. 9