79 […] the lack of any possibility of fully reviewing the author's conviction and sentence, as shown by the decision [...], the review having been limited to the formal or legal aspects of the conviction, means that the guarantees provided for in article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant have not been met. The author was therefore denied the right to a review of his conviction and sentence, contrary to article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant. 117 167. In the instant case, the writs of cassation filed to challenge the November 12, 1999 conviction did not satisfy the requirement of a liberal remedy that would permit the higher court to do a thorough analysis or examination of all the issues debated and analyzed in the lower court. Thus, the writs of cassation filed by Mssrs. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser and Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, and by the latter’s defense attorney and the special counsel for the newspaper “La Nación”, respectively (supra para. 95.w) to challenge the conviction did not meet the requirements of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention; the review allowed with those remedies was limited, not thorough and comprehensive. 168. The Court therefore finds that the State violated Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in combination with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa. b) Right to be heard by an impartial tribunal or judge (Article 8(1) of the Convention) 169. The alleged victims’ representatives argued that in the instant case, the State violated the right to be heard by an impartial tribunal or judge, protected under Article 8(1) of the Convention. The Court has held that any person subject to a proceeding of any nature before an organ of the State must be guaranteed that this organ is impartial and that it acts in accordance with the procedure established by law for hearing and deciding cases submitted to it. 118 170. The European Court has held that “impartiality” involves both objective and subjective aspects: First, the tribunal must be subjectively free of personal prejudice or bias. Secondly, it must also be impartial from an objective viewpoint, that is, it must offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect. Under the objective test, it must be determined whether, quite apart from the judges’ personal conduct, there are ascertainable facts which may raise doubts as to their impartiality. In this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance. What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public and above all in the parties to proceedings. 119 171. The right to be tried by an impartial judge or court is a fundamental guarantee of due process. In other words, the person on trial must have the guarantee that the judge or court presiding over his case brings to it the utmost U.N., Human Rights Committee, M. Sineiro Fernández v. Spain (1007/2001), report of August 7, 2003, paragraphs 7 and 8; and U.N., Human Rights Committee, C. Gómez Vásquez v. Spain (701/1996), report of July 20, 2000, para. 11.1. 117 118 Cf. Case of Ivcher-Bronstein, supra note 85, para. 112; Case of Constitutional Tribunal. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 77; Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al., supra note 114, para. 130131; 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. 20; and Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations, supra note 112, para. 30. 119 Cf. Eur. Court. H. R., Case of Pabla KY v. Finland, Judgment of June 26, 2004, para. 27; and Eur. Court. H. R., Case of Morris v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of February 26, 2002, para. 58.