33. Similarly, the Inter-American Court argued that Article 8(1) establishes that “[e]very person has the right to a hearing […] by an independent judge or tribunal […].” The wording of this Article indicates that the subject of that right is the defendant, the person facing the judge who will decide the case submitted to him. Two obligations arise from this right. The first pertains to the judge and the second to the State. A judge has the obligation to be independent, a duty that is fulfilled only when he acts according to—and guided by — the Law. The State, for its part, has the obligation to respect and guarantee the right to be heard by an independent judge, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. The obligation to respect this right entails the negative obligation of public authorities to refrain from any undue interference with the Judiciary or with any of its members, that is, with an individual judge. The obligation to guarantee this right entails preventing such interference and investigating and punishing those who commit these acts. Moreover, the duty of prevention involves the adoption, pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention, of an appropriate regulatory framework that guarantees judges an appropriate appointment process, tenure in office and other conditions. 34. Now, from the State’s aforementioned obligations other rights arise, in turn, for judges or for other citizens. For example, the guarantee of an appropriate appointment process for judges necessarily involves the right of citizens to have access to public office under conditions of equality; the guarantee of not being subject to discretionary removal implies that disciplinary and punitive processes for judges must necessarily respect the guarantees of due process and must offer them an effective remedy; the guarantee of tenure in office must be reflected in adequate conditions of service for judges, in which transfers, promotions and other conditions are sufficiently controlled and respected. 35. Finally, in the Case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, the Inter-American Court considered the arbitrary dismissal of a temporary judge of the First Instance Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Judicial Circuit, without affording her the minimum guarantees of due process and without adequate justification, without giving her an opportunity to be heard and to exercise her right of defense, and without allowing her any effective judicial remedy against the alleged violations of her rights, all as a consequence of the absence of guarantees in the transition process of the Judiciary 36. The Inter-American Court reiterated that one of the main objectives of the separation of powers is to guarantee the independence of judges. The purpose of this protection is to prevent the judicial system in general and its members in particular from being subject to possible undue restrictions in the exercise of their duties, imposed by bodies outside the Judiciary or even by those judges who perform review or appellate functions. 48 37. The Court emphasized, once again, the guarantees stemming from judicial independence: an appropriate appointment process, secure tenure in office and guarantees against external pressures. It also reaffirmed that the authority in charge of removing a judge must act independently and impartially in the procedure established for that purpose and allow the exercise of the right of defense. This is so, because the discretionary removal of judges raises the objective doubt of the observer regarding the real possibility of judges deciding specific disputes without fear of reprisals. 49 38. The Inter-American Court reiterated that, although provisional and permanent judges must have the same guarantees, these guarantees do not entail equal protection for both 48 Case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 97. 49 Ibid. para. 99. 9