judiciary.99 In this regard, the Court has noted that “the United Nations Basic Principles [on the Independence of the Judiciary] establish that “[t]he judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, […] without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”100 In addition, “these Principles establish that ‘[t]here shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference in the judicial process.’”101 107. This independence is not only external and inherent to the Judiciary of a democratic State, but also refers to the internal independence of the judge. In this regard, the Statute of the Iberoamerican Judge indicates: Article 4. Internal Independence: In the exercise of jurisdiction, judges are not subject to superior judicial authorities, notwithstanding the power of the said authorities to review jurisdictional decisions using legally established remedies, or the weight that each national legal system accords to the jurisprudence and precedents emanating from the Supreme Courts and Tribunals.102 108. Consequently, States must adopt the appropriate measures to ensure that disciplinary proceedings are not used in an abusive or arbitrary manner, which would infringe their independence.103 On this point, General Comment No. 32 of the Human Rights Committee indicates that: States should take specific measures guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary, protecting judges from any form of political influence in their decision-making through the constitution or adoption of laws establishing clear procedures and objective criteria for the appointment, remuneration, tenure, promotion, suspension and dismissal of the members of the judiciary and disciplinary sanctions taken against them.104 109. In this regard, the Basic Principles establish that: 17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge. 18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties. 19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.105 110. Similarly, the Statute of the Iberoamerican Judge indicates that “[t]he disciplinary responsibility of judges shall be the jurisdiction of the legally established organs of the Judiciary, Cf. Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 84, and Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and merits, supra, para. 67. 99 Cf. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 197, and Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 84 (the reference is to Principle 2 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary). 100 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 80, and Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 84. 101 Iberoamerican Summit of Presidents of Supreme Courts and Tribunals of Justice. Statute of the Iberoamerican Judge. Adopted at the VI Summit held in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canarias, Spain, on May 23, 24 and 25 2001, article 4. 102 Mutatis mutandi, ECHR, Oleksander Volkov v. Ukraine, No. 21722/11 [Fifth Section]. Judgment of January 9, 2013, para. 199. 103 Cf. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32, Article 14: The right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 19. 104 105 Principles 17, 18 and 19 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 28