any of the parties, and that they are not involved in the dispute,128 but rather act only and exclusively in accordance with, and based on, the law.129 119. Personal or subjective impartiality is presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary. This consists in demonstrating that a member of the Court or the competent authority has personal prejudices or biases against the litigants. Meanwhile, objective impartiality involves determining whether the authority in question has provided convincing proof that allows legitimate fears or well-founded suspicions of his or her partiality to be eliminated. 130 In addition, the Court has indicated that recusal is a procedural instrument that protects the right to be tried by an impartial organ, while seeking to give credibility to the functions of the jurisdiction.131 120. Regarding proceedings instituted against judicial authorities that could eventually result in their removal, as established in this judgment, the guarantee of irremovability that protects them to safeguard their independence requires that such proceedings be processed and decided objectively and impartially; in other words, as required by the guarantees of due process (supra paras. 95 and 98). 121. In the instant case, it is worth noting that, in their arguments, both the representatives and the Commission referred to the existence of a prior political pact that had allegedly determined the result of the impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, the State submitted arguments to deny such an agreement. The Court understands that this specific fact, in addition to being directly related to the factual framework established in the Commission’s Merits Report, constitutes a disputed issue regarding which the parties have had the opportunity to make the pertinent arguments and that is of interest to decide the case sub judice. 122. In this regard, the Court notes that, at the time of the facts, in the context of questions raised regarding the Judiciary,132 several Paraguayan politicians had publicly indicated their interest in making changes in the composition of the Supreme Court of Justice at that time.133 The numerous newspaper articles incorporated into these proceedings are the main source to infer this interest and, as indicated previously, the Court assesses these together with the whole body of evidence, the observations of the parties, and the rules of sound judicial discretion (supra para. 19). Thus, an examination of what happened allows the Court to indicate that, as an initial option to achieve the desired changes, the political authorities had envisaged adopting an “exceptional” law that would allow the justices to take “early Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 146, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 118. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2020. Series C No. 406, para. 124. 130 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 44, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 118. 131 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 63; Case of Rico v. Argentina, supra, para. 70, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, para. 125. 132 See, Testimonial statement of Marcelo Duarte Manzoni, provided during the public hearing before this Court, and testimonial statement of Carlos Sebastián Acha Mendoza, provided by affidavit(evidence file, volume IX, affidavits, folios 13609 and 13610). 133 Cf. Inter alia, newspaper article published in “La Nación” on August 28, 2003, entitled “El Ejecutivo y el Congreso buscarán consensuar el cambio de la Corte” [Executive and Congress will seek to agree on changes to the Court] (evidence file, volume IV, annex III.A to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 6362); newspaper article published in “La Nación” on September 15, 2003, entitled “Cumbre entre la ANR y Nicanor para analizar cambios en la Corte” [Meeting between ANR and Nicanor to analyze changes in the Court] (evidence file, volume IV, annex III.A to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 6365), and newspaper article published in “ABC” on October 1, 2003, entitled “El Presidente convoca a minicumbre para impulsar renovación de la Corte” [President calls for a mini-summit to promote renewal of the Court] (evidence file, volume IV, annex III.A to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 6357). 128 129 32