40 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 121. For its part, Article 1(1) of the Convention states that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 122. Article 2 of the American Convention reads as follows: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 123. As for the observance of due process guarantees in disciplinary proceedings against judges, the Inter-American Court has observed that the guarantee of tenure and irremovability means in part that judges shall not be subject to discretionary removal, which in turn requires that the proceedings conducted to discipline and sanction judges must respect the guarantees of due process and offer those affected an effective remedy.213 Thus, observance of the due process guarantees is, in principle, a necessary consequence of the State’s obligation to guarantee an independent and impartial judge in favor or those that use de system of justice. The Commission notes, however, that the observance of due process guarantees also follows from the punitive nature of the disciplinary process, which can result in a sanction that affects a judge’s status as a judge.214 1. The competence, independence and impartiality of the disciplinary authorities 124. With regard to the guarantee of a competent judge, the Court has written that while States have the authority to design and organize the disciplinary proceedings within their respective States, the authorities who participate in those proceedings must do so according to pre-established 213 I/A Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, paragraph 147. 214 Here, the Office of the United Nations Rapporteur on the Independence of judges and lawyers has listed the use of disciplinary measures against judges as one of the elements that affect the individual independence of judges. United Nations. General Assembly. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, A/HRC/11/41, March 24, 2009, paragraph 52. The Commission has also looked at the punitive nature of disciplinary proceedings against judges and the need to ensure the guarantees of due process protected under Article 8 of the Convention. See, in this regard, IACHR, Case of 12.600 Hugo Quintana Coello et al. (SCJ) regarding Ecuador (Merits), August 2, 2011, paragraph 100.