or its members. This implies that in relation to the specific judge, the State must prevent such interference.44 68. Regarding the alleged violation of the principle of judicial independence due to the mechanism of selection of jury members, the representatives stated that "the Impeachment Jury does not have the nature of an impartial or independent tribunal, given that its members are chosen for each case and do not enjoy stability in their posts, from which it follows that they are not in a position to resist the pressures exerted on them or not to fall into momentary arrangements".45 69. With respect to this allegation, the Court finds that Mr. Rico only made generic allegations that members of the Impeachment Jury were not protected against external pressures due to the way they were appointed, without explaining what type of pressures they had received or how they could have influenced the decision. Therefore, the Court considers that the right to an independent tribunal was not violated in this case. B.2. The alleged violation of the right to an impartial tribunal 70. This Court has established that impartiality requires that the judge acting in a specific dispute approaches the facts of the case subjectively, free of all prejudice, and also offers sufficient objective guarantees to exclude any doubt the parties or the community might entertain as to his or her lack of impartiality.46 In this sense, recusals and disqualifications are procedural instruments that protect the right to be tried by an impartial body. The guarantee of impartiality means that the members of the court have no direct interest, preconceived position, preference for one or other of the parties, are not involved in the dispute, and inspire the necessary confidence in the parties to the case, as well as in the citizens in a democratic society. Personal or subjective impartiality is presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary consisting, for example, in demonstrating that a member of a tribunal or a judge has personal prejudice or bias against the litigants. Meanwhile, objective impartiality consists in determining whether the contested judge has offered convincing proof that eliminates legitimate fears or well-founded suspicions of his partiality.47 These standards are also applicable to the members of the jury.48 71. The representatives argued that the right to an impartial tribunal was violated, given the existing relationships between members of the jury and the Bar Association. Specifically, they stated that G.E.S., who brought the accusation, was at the same time the Vice-President of the Council of the Magistracy, a person who combined the power of all the Bar Associations of the Province; and that G.D.S.M., the President of the Impeachment Jury, was at the same time the President of the Council of the Magistracy. 72. Regarding this allegation, the Court notes that there is no evidence that G.E.S.’s membership in both the Council of the Magistracy and the Bar Association of the Province had tainted the appointment of the jurors. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Commission and considers that based on the evidence in the case file, it is not possible to affirm that any of the jurors had a direct interest or a prior position with respect to Mr. Rico, and to that extent the presumption of subjective impartiality is not rebutted. The Court also concludes that no Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 146, and Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala, para. 91. 45 Cf. Brief of pleadings, motions and evidence of March 9, 2018 (merits file, folio 102). 46 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al ("Corte Primera de lo Contencioso Administrativo") v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 56, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 239. 47 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. ("Corte Primera de lo Contencioso Administrativo") v. Venezuela, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 239. 48 Cf. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 239. 44 -18-