30 retirees “cease to render active service” to the Armed Forces.96 Thus, retired service members in Venezuela do not exercise particular functions of defense or national security97 that would permit them to be tried in the State´s military forum, and the Tribunal finds no reason to depart from its previous jurisprudence that determined that retired service members should not be tried by a military court. 116. Consequently, Mr. Usón Ramírez –who was not an active service member or exercising any particular function of defense or national security- was tried by a court that was not competent to do so. Thus, following the jurisprudence of this Tribunal in such respect, the Court considers that the State violated the right of Mr. Usón Ramírez to be tried by a competent judge or court, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. A.2) Impartiality 117. The right to be tried by an impartial judge or tribunal is a fundamental guarantee of due process. That is, it shall be guaranteed that the judge or the tribunal exercise maximum objectivity in the trial.98 In this respect, this Tribunal has established that impartiality requires that the judge in a private conflict is closer to the facts of the cause with no subjective prejudice and, similarly, offers sufficient guarantees from the objective standpoint so that it is beyond all doubt that there is full impartiality. 99 The impartiality of the tribunal means that its members should not have any vested interest, a premeditated decision, preference for any of the parties involved, and that they are not involved in the dispute.100 Personal or subjective impartiality is assumed unless there is evidence to the contrary. In turn, the so-called objective evidence consists of determining whether the questioned judge can provide convincing elements to eradicate any legitimate fears or wellgrounded suspicions of partiality regarding his person.101 118. Consequently, this Court has declared previously that judges must separate themselves from a cause brought to their attention when doubt or other motives goes against the integrity of the tribunal as an impartial body. In order to safeguard the administration of justice, it must be assured that a judge is free from any prejudice and there is no fear at all raising any doubts about the exercise of his jurisdictional functions.102 119. In this case, it has been shown that one of the magistrates, Mr. Eladio Ramon Aponte Aponte, in the Criminal Court of Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice who heard the appeal filed by Mr. Usón Ramírez, was the person who ordered the investigation 96 In this regard, Article 240 of the Organic Code establishes that “[r]etirement is the time where Officials […] who stop lending their services to the National Armed Forces because of [among other reasons]: […] g) [d]isciplinary measures.” 97 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 47, para. 132. 98 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 40, para. 171 y Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 47, para. 145. 99 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”), supra note 41, para. 56. 100 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 47, para. 146. 101 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al.(“First Court of Administrative Disputes”), supra note 41, para. 56. 102 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 47, para. 147.