may entertain as to his or her lack of impartiality.115 Thus, this guarantee means that the members of the court should not have a direct interest, preconceived position, or preference for any of the parties, that they are not involved in the dispute and that they inspire the necessary confidence in the parties to the case, as well as in the citizens in a democratic society. Personal or subjective impartiality is to be presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary consisting, for example, in the demonstration that any member of a court or a judge has personal prejudices or biases against the litigants. In turn, the so-called objective impartiality consists in determining whether the judicial authority in question has offered sufficient elements of conviction to exclude any legitimate misgivings or well-grounded suspicions of bias.116 The guarantee of impartiality is applicable to disciplinary proceedings held against judges.117 119. Regarding the obligation of impartiality, article 194 of the Organic Code of the Courts indicates that “[j]udges may lose their jurisdiction to hear certain cases owing to declared legal impediment or by recusal, if necessary, based on legal grounds.”118 As grounds for “legal impediment,” article 195 establishes, if “[t]he judge has expressed his decision on the pending matter, with sufficient knowledge of the case to pronounce judgment.” 119 Also, article 199 of the OCC establishes that “[j]udges who consider themselves encompassed by any of the legal grounds for legal impediment or recusal must, as soon as they become aware of this, record this in the proceedings, declaring themselves disqualified to continue functioning, or requesting that this declaration be made by the court of which they are a member. However, a prior request shall be required to declare the disqualification of justices of the Supreme Court and of the Appellate Courts, based on any of the grounds for recusal.” 120 Lastly, article 200 of the Code stipulates that “[t]he legal impediment of judges can and must be declared, ex officio, or at the request of a party.”121 120. In this case, the presumed victim sent his academic paper to the Supreme Court on November 30, 2004, and the latter forwarded it to the Appellate Court of La Serena on December 22, 2004, “for your information and for all relevant purposes.”122 Subsequently, on December 27, 2004, the Secretary of the Supreme Court of Justice informed Judge Urrutia Laubreaux that it was returning his academic paper “as ordered by the Plenum of this Court […] because it was considered that the said paper contained views that this Court finds inadequate and unacceptable.”123 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 56, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 124. 115 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 56, and Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and merits, supra, para. 70. 116 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 78, and 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, para. 168. 117 118 Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 194 (evidence file, folio 836). 119 Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 195.8 (evidence file, folio 3897). 120 Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 199 (evidence file, folios 3899 and 3900). 121 Organic Code of the Courts. Law 7421 published on July 9, 1943, article 200 (evidence file, folio 3900). Letter to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile signed by Daniel David Urrutia Laubreaux dated November 30, 2004 (evidence file, folio 6), and Letter signed by the Secretary of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile dated December 22, 2004 (evidence file, folio 24). 122 Letter signed by the Secretary of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile of December 27, 2004 (evidence file, folio 26). 123 31