106. In view of the foregoing, the Court must determine whether, in the instant case, the State incurred in an international violation of its obligations under Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the American Convention. 107. The Court recalls that the right to be tried by an impartial judge or court is a fundamental guarantee of due process, and it must be ensured that the judge or court presiding over the case brings to it the utmost objectivity. This Court has established that impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a particular dispute must approach the facts of the case without subjective bias and must also offer sufficient guarantees of an objective nature to inspire the necessary confidence in the parties to the case, as well as in the citizens in a democratic society.145 The impartiality of a court implies that its members have no direct interest in, a pre-established viewpoint on, or a preference for one of the parties, and that they are not involved in the controversy.146 That is so because the judge must appear as acting without being subject to any influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect,147 and only and exclusively in accordance with — and on the basis of— the Law.148 108. Moreover, the Court reiterates that a judge's personal or subjective impartiality is to be presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary.149 In an analysis of subjective impartiality, the Court should attempt to determine the personal interests or reasons of a judge in a particular case.150 As to the type of evidence required to prove subjective impartiality, the European Court has indicated the need to ascertain whether the judge has displayed hostility or ill will if he has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal reasons.151 The so-called objective approach test consists in determining whether the judge in question offered sufficient elements of conviction to exclude any legitimate misgivings or well-grounded suspicion of partiality regarding his or her person.152 109. Likewise, Article 8(2) of the Convention provides that "[e]very person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to Guatemala, May 23, 1996 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, folios 93 to 112). 145 Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 171, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 385. 146 Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 146, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 385. 147 Cf. Principle 2 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 385. 148 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al ("Corte Primera de lo Contencioso Administrativo") v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 56, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 385. 149 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. ("Corte Primera de lo Contencioso Administrativo") v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 386. 150 Case of Atala Riffo and girls v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 234, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 386. 151 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Children v. Chile, supra, para. 234, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 386, citing: ECtHR, Case of Kyprianou v. Cyprus, no. 73797/01, Judgment of December 15, 2005, para. 119 ("As regards the type of proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill will or has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal" reasons). See also ECtHR, Case of Bellizzi v. Malta, no. 46575/09, Judgment of June 21, 2011, para. 52 and final of 28 November 2011, para. 52, and Case of De Cubber v. Belgium, No. 9186/80, Judgment of October 26, 1996, para. 25. Furthermore, this Court noted that the subjective impartiality of a judge may be determined, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, on the basis of the judge's conduct during the proceedings, the content, arguments and language used in the decision, or the reasons for conducting the investigation, which indicate a lack of professional distance from the decision. Cf. ECtHR, Case of Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, Judgment of December 15, 2005, paras. 130-133. 152 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. ("Corte Primera de lo Contencioso Administrativo"), supra, para. 56, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 386. 32