40 independent tribunal that determined the disciplinary proceeding against the victims without any sort of involvement in the pressure exerted on them. 138. In accordance with the Court’s previous decisions, an adequate appointment process and a fixed term of office are some of the ways to guarantee the independence of judges.161 Also, the Court has already held that neither regular nor temporary judges can be subject to discretionary removal (supra paras. 43 and 44). 139. The Commission stated that since the Constitutional Assembly ceased to operate, “removals and new appointments [from and to the CORJS] have been made by the [STJ] without following a pre-defined procedure.” According to the Commission, the members of the CORJS “can be discretionally removed and appointed, and, therefore, their offices have no stability guaranteeing their independence.” The representative agreed with the Commission and stated that the positions of the members of the CORJS “are temporary” and that they “can be removed at any point in time.” The State argued that the members of the CORJS have “full independence and impartiality,” as they are “appointed by the [J]udicial [B]ranch of which they are members.” 140. The Court has verified that the Decree on the Public Authorities Transitional Regime, of December 27, 1999, established that “the [CORJS] [would] be made up of such citizens as the […] Constitutional Assembly may appoint until such time as the Executive Directorate of the Judiciary, the disciplinary Tribunals and the Autonomous Public Defense System [we]re effectively in operation.”162 On January 18, 2000, the Constitutional Assembly appointed the seven members of the CORJS.163 141. On August 2, 2000, the STJ assumed the authority to reorganize the CORJS164 and, on August 9, 2000, because some of the members of the CORJS had been appointed to a different office, the Plenary Chamber of the STJ ratified the appointments of three of the seven members selected by the Constitutional Assembly as regular members, while the other three members became alternates.165 From 2005 onwards, the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ has,166 via various judgments, repeatedly modified the make-up of the CORJS, sometimes by appointing the alternates in substitution of the regular members,167 and others by 161 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 60, para. 75. 162 Cf. article 28 of the decree whereby the Transitional Scheme for Exercising Public Powers is established, supra note 27. 163 Cf. decree of January 18, 2000, issued by the Constitutional Assembly and published in Official Gazette No. 36.878 on January 26, 2000, cited in the CORJS resolutions of March 10, 2000 and March 22, 2000, which were published in Official Gazette No. 36.925 of April 4, 2000 (Evidence file, Book XII, pp. 4064 and 4065). On March 28, 2000 the CORJS approved its Rules of Procedure and established that said Commission would be made up of seven regular members and three alternates. Cf. Article 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the CORJS, supra note 29. 164 Cf. article 30 of Normativa sobre la Dirección, Gobierno y Administración del Poder Judicial [Rules and Regulations for Directing, Governing and Managing the Judiciary], supra note 30. 165 Cf. minutes of session of the Plenary Chamber of the STJ of August 9, 2000, published in Official Gazette No. 37.019, of August 22, 2000, quoted in resolution No. 117 of October 8, 2003 issued by the CORJS, supra note 148, p. 1172. 166 On June 1, 2005, through a judgment rendered on an action for unconstitutional legislative inaction, the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ ordered “the substitution” of the regular and alternate members of the CORJS. Cf. judgment No. 1057 of June 1, 2005, rendered by the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ, supra note 13. 167 Cf. judgment No. 3321 of November 3, 2005, rendered by the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ, supra note 13.