15 damage caused by the ensuing denial of justice.”56 On October 2005 judges were appointed to the First and Second Courts for Administration Matters.57 41. The Court will now proceed to analyze the arguments by the parties regarding the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial and of the right to judicial protection. 1. Discretionary removal of provisional judges 42. The first issue to determine is whether the States must afford provisional judges a procedure for their removal of office similar or identical to the one afforded judges with a permanent tenure. The Commission considered that “regardless of whether the judges in a country be permanently tenured or provisional, they must be and appear to be independent,” for which reason “[t]heir removal from office must be processed in strict compliance with the procedures established by law, respecting their right to due process.” In his turn, the representative reported that “[t]he provisional (or temporary) character of the judges implies they lack tenure of their office and that to remove them therefrom it is not mandatory either to previously institute proceedings wherein the right to a defense be guaranteed, or to ascertain whether they have incurred in a disciplinary infraction.” The State pointed out that “having the former provisional judges of the First Court been temporary appointees and therefore lacking permanent tenure of their office, their removal therefrom was effected by means of a disciplinary procedure wherein they were granted all the guarantees and the judicial protection afforded permanently to tenured judges.” 43. The Court observes that the States are bound to ensure that provisional judges be independent and therefore must grant them some sort of stability and permanence in office, for to be provisional is not equivalent to being discretionally removable from office. In fact, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has expressed that dismissal of judges by the executive, before the expiry of the term for which they had been appointed, without any specific reasons given to them and without effective judicial protection being available to contest the dismissal, is incompatible with the independence of the judiciary.58 Along the same lines, the Court considers that the fact that appointments are provisional should not modify in any manner the safeguards instituted to guarantee the good performance of the judges and to ultimately benefit the parties to a case. Also, such provisional appointments must not extend indefinitely in time, and must be subject to a condition subsequent, such as a predetermined deadline or the holding and completion of a public competitive selection process based on ability and qualifications, or of a public competitive examination, whereby a permanent replacement for the provisional judge is appointed.59 Provisional appointments must 56 Cf. newspaper article entitled “TSJ establece vía procesal alterna ante el Cierre de la Corte Primera” [“STJ creates an alternative procedural routing now the First Court is closed”], published on April 6, 2004 in El Nacional (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1229). 57 Cf. press release of October 18, 2005, issued by the STJ, entitled “STJ President swears in Judges of the First and Second Courts for Administration Matters” (Evidence file, Book II, Annex B.1.K, pp. 725 and 726). 58 United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 20. 59 The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary intrinsically relate permanence of judges in office with their guaranteed tenure by recognizing such guarantee until the expiry of their term of office, where such exists. Cf. Principle 12 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan, Italy, August, 26 to September 6, 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985; Principle