2 the State must refrain from any undue interference in the Judiciary or its components; that is, with regard to the person of the specific judge, and must prevent such interferences and investigate and punish those who commit them. 6 5. The right to be tried by an impartial judge or court is a fundamental guarantee of due process and it must be ensured that the judge and court, in the exercise of their functions, have the greatest possible objectivity when hearing a case.7 The Inter-American Court has established that impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a dispute must approach the facts of the case subjectively eliminating any prejudice and, thus, offering sufficient guarantees of an objective nature to inspire the necessary confidence in the parties to the case, as well as in the citizens in a democratic society.8 The court’s impartiality signifies that its members do not have a direct interest, a preconceived position or a preference for one of the parties, and are not involved in the dispute. 9 6. In the case of Granier et al. v. Venezuela, with regard to the representatives’ argument concerning the “lack of procedural probity of the actions of the Chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice, thus revealing a total lack of independence of this highest judicial organ [as well as] an evident misuse of public power,” the following points should be emphasized: (i) the decision to seize RCTV’s assets was taken during proceedings on the application for constitutional amparo and the action for joint and separate interest in which interim measures had been requested. In one of those proceedings, the Supreme Court took, ex officio, and without being asked, the decision to assign the use of the property owned by RCTV to TVes, so that the latter could transmit throughout national territory; (ii) when the interim measure was issued granting the use of the assets to CONATEL, TVes had only recently been created and did not have the necessary infrastructure to transmit nationwide; thus, the Supreme Court granted it, ex officio, the use of the assets owned by RCTV; (iii) the representatives of RCTV were unable to take part in the proceedings directly because, even though the interim measure took a decision on the use of the assets owned by RCTV, they were not summoned to appear or served notice directly, and were only able to take part in the proceedings as interveners, and (iv) seven years later, the interim measure continues in force, allowing the State to use the assets owned by RCTV, without the Supreme Court taking any action to decide on the objection to this interim measure. 7. The action of the Supreme Court of Justice contributed to the decisions taken by organs of the Executive in relation to reserving the right to use the spectrum initially assigned to RCTV and the creation of a State-owned television channel, because the unspecific interim measure was ordered by the Supreme Court in order to grant the recently created State channel the assets it needed to operate. the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of the Offenders, held in Milan from August 26 to September 6, 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in its Resolutions 40/32 of November 29, 1985, and 40/146 of December 13, 1985. Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 146. 6 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 171, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 145. 7 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 171; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 98. 8 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 146, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 117. 9