other hand, there is the aspect of personal impartiality, which refers to the conduct of the judge in relation to a specific case. The European Court of Human Rights has indicated that these aspects of impartiality may be analyzed from a subjective point of view (subjective test) or from an objective point of view (objective test). The question of the personal aspect of impartiality may be assessed by both tests and the question of the functional aspect of impartiality may be analyzed from the objective viewpoint. The Inter-American Court has stipulated that recusal is a procedural instrument that protects the right to be tried by an impartial and independent court.39 It has also affirmed that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed, unless there is proof to the contrary.40 Based on a subjective analysis, the proof requires endeavoring to ascertain the personal conviction or interest of a given judge in a particular case,41 so that it may be addressed at establishing, for example, whether a judge has displayed any hostility, prejudice or personal bias or whether he has arranged to have the case assigned to himself for personal reasons.42 Furthermore, the European Court has indicated that the personal impartiality of a judge can be ascertained, according to the specific circumstances of the case, from the conduct of the judge during the proceedings, the content, arguments and language used or the reasons to conduct the investigation, which indicate a lack of professional distance from the decision.43 31. Thus, the sphere or aspect of impartiality that may be called into question (personal or functional) and the type of analysis to be made (subjective or objective) will depend in each situation on the circumstances of the case and the causes of the misgivings of the interested party. impartiality arises. The first is functional in nature: where the judge’s personal conduct is not at all impugned, but where for instance, the exercise of different functions within the judicial process by the same person (see Piersack, cited above), or hierarchical or other links with another actor in the proceedings […] objectively justify misgivings as to the impartiality of the Tribunal, which thus fails to meet the Convention standard under the objective test […]. The second is of a personal character and derives from the conduct of the judges in a given case. […]”. 39 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, paras. 182 and 186. 40 Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 234. Similarly, in European case law, see: ECHR, Case of Kyprianou v. Cyprus, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (Grand Chamber), Application No. 73797/01, Judgment of 15 December 2005, para. 119. (“In applying the subjective test, the Court has consistently held that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary”), citing ECHR, Case of Hauschildt v. Denmark , Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (Plenary) Application No. 10486/83, Judgment of 24 May 1989, para. 47. 41 Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 234. Cf. ECHR, Case of Kyprianou v. Cyprus, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (Grand Chamber), Application No. 73797/01, Judgment of 15 December 2005, para. 118 (“a subjective approach, that is endeavoring to ascertain the personal conviction or interest of a given judge in a particular case”). 42 Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 234. Cf. ECHR, Case of Kyprianou v. Cyprus, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (Grand Chamber), Application No. 73797/01, Judgment of 15 December 2005, para. 119 (“As regards the type of proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill-will or has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal reasons”). See also, ECHR, Case of Bellizzi v. Malta, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (Third Section), Application No. 46575/09, Judgment of 21 June 2011, para. 52, and Case of De Cubber v. Belgium, Judgment (Merits), Court (Chamber), Application No.9186/80, Judgment of 26 October 1984, para. 25. 43 Cf. ECHR, Case of Kyprianou v. Cyprus, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (Grand Chamber), Application No. 73797/01, Judgment of 15 December 2005, paras. 130 to 133. 10