-1868. According to this Court’s case law, in proceedings brought before judges, the scope of judicial guarantees and effective judicial protection for judges must be analyzed in relation to the standards on judicial independence. The Court has specified that the judges have specific guarantees due to the necessary independence of the Judiciary, which the Court has understood as “essential for the exercise of the judicial function.”101 The following guarantees derive from judicial independence: an appropriate appointment process, tenure in office, and the guarantee against external pressure.102 69. This Court has established, specifically regarding the guarantee of stability and tenure for judges, that: (i) their removal must be exclusively the result of the permitted reasons, either by means of a procedure that respects judicial guarantees or because their mandate has ended; (ii) judges may only be dismissed owing to serious disciplinary offenses or incompetence; (iii) any disciplinary procedure against a judge must be decided in accordance with the established norms for judicial conduct in fair proceedings that ensure objectivity and impartiality pursuant to the Constitution or the law.103 70. Meanwhile, the Court has noted that, unlike other cases related to the removal of judges that have been decided by this Court, in this case, the nature of the process to which Mr. Colindres Schonenberg was subject is unclear, since it was not established by law. When asked at the public hearing whether said process constituted political control by the Legislative Assembly or a disciplinary process, the Commission pointed out that the process has a punitive nature, the representatives pointed out that it was a punitive disciplinary procedure, and the State did not make a specific statement in this regard, although it argued that the appointment of Mr. Colindres Schonenberg was political. In view of this lack of clarity, the Court, when ruling on this case, will analyze whether the guarantees applicable to any type of process were fulfilled. 71. Taking into account the foregoing considerations, we will proceed to analyze the alleged violations of the American Convention that allegedly occurred in the first and second dismissals of Mr. Colindres Schonenberg. Next, the right to judicial protection and the reasonable term in the civil lawsuit will be examined. B.1 First dismissal of Mr. Colindres Schonenberg 72. Mr. Colindres Schonenberg was dismissed for the first time on November 22, 1996. After the dismissal: i) Mr. Colindres Schonenberg was reinstated to his post; ii) he was paid the wages he stopped receiving, and iii) the State paid Mr. Colindres Schonenberg the amount of USD $114,285.60 for pain and suffering. 73. Based on the foregoing, first of all, we underscore that the American human rights system has a national level through which the State is responsible for guaranteeing the rights and liberties set out in the Convention and investigate, and as the case may be, judge and prosecute violations committed. In the event that a given case is not resolved at the domestic or national stage, the Convention provides for an international level in which the main agencies are the Commission and the Court. This Court has also maintained that when an issue has been resolved domestically under the Convention, it is not necessary to bring it before the Inter-American Court for approval Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 190. 102 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001, para. 75, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 191. 103 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 77, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 200. 101