57 175. The Inter-American Commission argued that “another aspect that hindered the course of the investigation was the abstention of no less than 34 judges and two prosecutors from examining the case.” Specifically, the Commission expressed that “[w]ithout raising the issue of whether these abstentions were legitimate or not, the Commission request[ed] the Court to examine the dilatory and obstructionist effects that they had in the domestic proceedings.” Moreover, the Commission indicated that the abstentions themselves brought about delays in the proceedings. In addition, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that there have been “37 abstentions and 1 challenge” in the domestic criminal proceeding. 176. It is pertinent to point out that the Inter-American Commission made no specific reference to the claimed abstentions and made, in a general manner, it mentioned that “at least, 34 judges and 2 prosecutors” abstained from examining the criminal proceeding. In addition, also in general terms, the Commission requested the Court to analyze “the dilatory and obstructionist effects” such abstentions had. In this sense, the Tribunal considers that a serious examination of this issue implies verifying the effect each one of the abstentions had on the criminal proceeding in order to conclude whether or not they hindered or delayed the proceeding. Given the dimension of the possible implications, the Court shall now only refer to the judicial abstentions. 177. The effective exercise of due process is one of the main principles of justice, and it carries with it the presupposition that the judge who intervenes in a particular dispute approaches the facts of the case in an impartial manner. This means the judge must subjectively lack any personal prejudice and offer sufficient objective guarantees that allow for the elimination of all doubt that the persons demanding justice or the community may hold with regard to the lack of impartiality.217 In this respect, one way of guaranteeing the impartial conduct of a proceeding is by means of the procedural precept of the abstention, which a judge may exercise whenever he considers that he will be prevented from hearing certain matter, due to the appearance of some ground stipulated by the law, because his impartiality could be jeopardized. 178. This Court has already indicated that Article 8 of the American Convention recognizes the concept of "due process of law,” which includes the prerequisites necessary to ensure the adequate protection of those persons whose rights or obligations are pending judicial determination.218 In that respect, paragraph 1 of said provision establishes that “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, […] by a […] impartial tribunal,[…] in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” Therefore, the right to judicial disqualification is an issue that necessarily has a bearing on the criminal due process, under the terms of the American Convention. 179. Having established the foregoing, before entering into the analysis of the issue put forward before the Court in this separate section, the Tribunal deems necessary to indicate that it is not appropriate to rule on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the judicial absentions referred to by the Commission and that the analysis is limited to the alleged 217 Cf. Case of Apitz-Barbera et al. (“First Court of Adminstrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008 Series C No. 182, para. 56, and Article 55 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-20 of September 29, 2009. Series A No. 20. para. 77. 218 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9. para. 28.