56 228. The Court has held that 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 objectivity. This way, courts inspire the necessary trust and confidence in the parties to the case and in the citizens of a democratic society.336 229. The Inter-American Court has taken note of the legal precedents of the European Court with regard to objective and subjective aspects of impartiality. In said legal precedent, the European Court has held: Firstly, 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 that the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the 337 public and above all in the parties to proceedings. 230. Hereunder, the Commission will examine the contention made by some of the petitioners pertaining to the alleged violation of this right. 1. Manfred Amrhein, Ronald Fernández, Carlos Osborne, Carlos González and Arturo Fallas 231. The alleged victims claimed that two months into the criminal investigation being conducted against them, the presiding investigating magistrate gave interviews to the news media, wherein he prejudged the facts and the determination of liability, even though he was subsequently removed from office. They also contended that at different stages of the procedure judges felt “enormous social pressure” to convict them and “even though there was no general directive it was evident that an acquittal (…) would have had a bearing on a negative perception of the judicial system.” 232. In response, the State noted that the judge referenced by the alleged victims was replaced by another judge who conducted the preliminary investigation and opened the proceedings and, consequently, their right to an impartial judge was not infringed. It contended that there was no public smear campaign against them nor is there evidence that other judges have acted partially. The State also noted that a lack of impartiality of the trial court was not alleged in any petition or motion. 233. The Commission notes that the judge originally assigned to the case was removed from it prior to the issuing of the order to institute investigation proceedings. Additionally, the IACHR does not have concrete information regarding how the judges who decided the criminal case of the alleged victims acted so as to have affected their impartiality. Consequently, in light of the only information available to it, the Commission finds that the State did not violate the right to an impartial judge. 336 IA Court of HR, Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 171. 337 ECHR, Case of Pabla KY v. Finlad. Judgment of 26 June, 2004, para. 27; and Case of Morris v. the United Kingdom. Judgment of 26 February, 2002, para. 58.