50. This Court has pointed out that the guarantees contemplated in Article 8(1) of the Convention are also applicable to cases in which a non-judicial authority adopts decisions that affect the determination of the rights of individuals, taking into account that it is not required to comply with the guarantees of a jurisdictional body, but it must comply with those intended to ensure that the decision is not arbitrary.29 51. The Court will proceed to examine the arguments of the parties in this order: 1. The alleged violation of the right to a competent and independent tribunal; 2. The alleged violation of the right to an impartial tribunal; 3. The alleged violation of the right to a reasoned judgment; 4. The alleged violation of the right to defense, to other judicial guarantees and to appeal the judgment; and 5. Conclusion. B.1. The alleged violation of the right to a competent and independent tribunal 52. This Court has indicated that the scope of judicial guarantees and effective judicial protection in proceedings against judicial authorities must be analyzed in relation to the standards on judicial independence. The Court has specified that 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”. From judicial independence derive the guarantees of an adequate appointment process, tenure in the post and protection from external pressure.30 53. In addition, the Court has stated that one of the main objectives of the separation of public powers is the guarantee of judicial independence.31 This autonomous exercise shall be guaranteed by the State both in its institutional aspect, that is, with regard to the Judicial Power as a system, as well as in connection with its individual aspect, that is, with regard to the specific judge as an individual. The objective of the protection lies in avoiding that the justice system in general and its members specifically be submitted to possible improper restrictions in the exercise of their duties by bodies foreign to the Judicial Power or even by those judges who exercise duties of revision or appeal.32 54. Based on the foregoing, it is incumbent upon the Court to analyze the possible effects on the right to an independent judge from two different perspectives. On the one hand, it must determine whether the proceedings before the Impeachment Jury affect, in abstracto, the judicial independence and the guarantee of tenure in office and, secondly, whether the proceeding that was carried out against Mr. Rico violated the principle of independence. 55. The Court has said that the guarantee of tenure in the post as a component of judicial independence is composed of several elements: (i) their removal must be exclusively the result of 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, since the free Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 71, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, para. 65. 30 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 Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, para. 68. 31 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 73, and Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 5, 2019. Series C No. 374, para. 83. 32 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. ("Corte Primera de lo Contencioso Administrativo") v. Venezuela, para. 55, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 207. 29 -15-