2. General considerations on the guarantees applicable to judicial officers, including prosecutors 2.1 The principle of judicial independence and the removal of judicial officers 52. The IACHR has indicated that the principle of judicial independence is a requirement inherent to a democratic form of government and a fundamental prerequisite for the protection of human rights. 29 It is enshrined as one of the guarantees of due process protected by Article 8(1) of the American Convention and, moreover, the principle gives rise to the “reinforced” 30 guarantees that states must offer judges to ensure their independence. 31 The organs of the inter-American system have interpreted the principle of judicial independence so as to incorporate the following guarantees: adequate appointment process, tenure in the position, and guarantees against external pressures. 32 53. Specifically, with respect to the guarantees for ensuring tenure, the Court has indicated that proceedings that may culminate in the separation of a judicial officer should unfold in a manner compatible with the principle of judicial independence. This implies that the states should ensure that all persons who perform judicial functions have guarantees of reinforced stability, understanding this to mean that the dismissal or removal of a judge from his or her position may proceed on two fundamental grounds: (i) for engaging in “clearly punishable” conduct, “based on the most serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence,” 33 or (ii) due to completing the term or satisfying the condition established in the designation. Provisional status is not equivalent to free removal and should not mean any alteration whatsoever of the regime of guarantees for the sound performance of the judge and safeguard of parties who come before the courts. 34 54. Stability of judicial officers in their positions is closely tied to the guarantee against external and internal pressures, since if they do not have security of tenure during a given period they would be vulnerable to pressures from different sectors, mainly from those who have the power to decide on their removal. 55. Accordingly, the Commission reiterates that the states must ensure that all persons who exercise a judicial function have reinforced guarantees of stability in the understanding that except for committing serious disciplinary breaches, stability in the position should be respected for the term or until satisfaction of the condition established in the designation, without any distinction between career service judges and those who perform the judicial function temporarily or provisionally. Such temporary or provisional nature should be determined by a term or a specific condition for the exercise of the judicial function, so as to ensure that these judges will not be removed from their positions due to the IACHR, Case 12,816, Merits, Report No. 103/13, November 5, 2013, para. 112. Citing United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 19. See in this regard, Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Articles 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 30. See also, IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, III. Independence and Separation of Public Powers, December 30, 2009. para. 80. 30 I/A Court HR. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67; IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights, December 30, 2009, para. 185; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, December 31, 2011, para. 359. 31 Thus, for example, the Inter-American Court has indicated that the obligations of the State with respect to parties subject to proceedings before the courts give rise, in turn, to “rights for judges,” among which the Court has indicated the guarantee that judges enjoy that they shall not be subject to discretionary removal, meaning that disciplinary proceedings involving judges must observe the guarantees of due process and offer judges undergoing a disciplinary process an effective remedy. I/A Court HR. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 188. 32IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators: Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, paras. 56, 109, and 184, I/A Court HR. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 191. 33 I/A Court HR. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 259. 34 I/A Court HR. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No.182, para. 43. 29 9