important, owing to the confidence that the courts of justice should inspire in the accused.33 26. Appearances are important in order to assess whether or not a court is “impartial.” Thus, the ECHR has reiterated the famous aphorism “justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.”34 27. Likewise, the Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment on Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial,” stated that: 21. The requirement of impartiality has two aspects. First, judges must not allow their judgement to be influenced by personal bias or prejudice, nor harbour preconceptions about the particular case before them, nor act in ways that improperly promote the interests of one of the parties to the detriment of the other. Second, the tribunal must also appear to a reasonable observer to be impartial. For instance, a trial substantially affected by the participation of a judge who, under domestic statutes, should have been disqualified cannot normally be considered to be 35 impartial. 28. In addition, the ECHR has underscored that, in order to prove that there has been a violation of the right to an impartial judge, it is not sufficient to make an analysis in abstract and a priori and, especially, a general analysis; rather, it is essential to analyze each specific case.36 29. Also, in the European sphere it has been determined that States parties are obliged to organize their legal system so as to ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 6.1 of the European Convention.37 30. In summary, the analysis of an alleged lack of judicial impartiality may include, on the one hand, the sphere of functional impartiality which refers to aspects such as the functions assigned to the judge within the judicial proceedings. 38 Then, on the 33 ECHR, Case of Castillo Algar v. Spain, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (Chamber) Application No. 28194/95 28194/95, Judgment of 28 October 1998, para. 45. 34 ECHR, Case of Morice v. France, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), Court (Fifth Section), Application No. 29369/10, Judgment of 11 July 2013, para. 71; and Case of De Cubber v. Belgium, Judgment (Merits), Court (Chamber), Application No. 9186/80, Judgment of 26 October 1984, para. 26. The existence of impartiality, for the purposes of Article 6.1, must be ascertained based on a subjective test; that is, on the basis of a personal conviction of a specific judge in a particular case, and also based on an objective test; that is, determining whether a judge offers sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this regard. Personal impartiality may be presumed, unless there is proof to the contrary. Under the objective test, it should be considered whether, over and above the personal conduct of the judge, there are certain facts that could raise doubts about his impartiality. In this regard, even appearances could have a certain importance. What is at stake is the confidence that the courts should inspire in a democratic society in the population and, above all, in the case of criminal proceedings, in the accused. This means that, in order to examine whether a specific judge lacks impartiality, the point of view of the accused is important, although not decisive. The significant factor is whether the misgivings can be considered objectively justified. García Roca, Javier and Vidal Zapatero, José Miguel, op. cit. p. 382 and 383. 35 Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 32. Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, ninetieth session, Geneva, 9 to 27 July 2007 36 García Roca, Javier and Vidal Zapatero, José Miguel, op. cit. p. 385. 37 ECHR. Case of Guincho v. Portugal, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction, Court (Chamber), Application. 8990/8Judgment of 10 July 1984, para.38. 38 In this regard, 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. 121: “An analysis of the Courts case law discloses two possible situations in which the question of a lack of judicial 9