de la referencia.)258. In an analysis of subjective impartiality, the Court should attempt to determine the personal interests or reasons of a judge in a particular case259. As to the type of evidence required to prove subjective impartiality, the European Court has indicated the need to ascertain whether the judge has displayed hostility or ill will if he has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal reasons260. 235. The Court has already established (supra paras. 222 and 230) that the extraordinary visit affected Ms. Atala’s right to equality, non-discrimination and private life. Likewise, it has concluded that it was discriminatory to include Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation or her relationship with her partner in the disciplinary investigation, since this had no bearing whatsoever on her professional performance (supra para. 221 and therefore there were no grounds to conclude that Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation could result in a disciplinary offense. However, the report on the visit to her work place determined that the findings regarding Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation “take on a great seriousness that merits the Court’s [of Appeals of Temuco] notice. (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.). 236. Furthermore, the Court notes the circumstances in which the extraordinary visit took place, since prior to and during the visit, officials and employees of the Court of Villarrica were questioned several times to ascertain Ms. Atala´s sexual orientation and habits (supra paras. 228 and 229). It also notes that the conclusions of the report on the visit, which was submitted to the Court of Appeals, were approved on the same day in their totality by said Court, which immediately proceeded to file disciplinary charges against Ms. Atala, among other things, because of her sexual orientation. 237. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Court considers that prejudices and stereotypes were evident in the report, which demonstrated that those who prepared and approved said report were not objective regarding this matter. On the contrary, they expressed their personal position regarding Ms. Atala’s sexual orientation in a disciplinary sphere in which a judicial reprimand for this fact was neither acceptable nor lawful. Consequently, the Court finds that the extraordinary visit and the disciplinary investigation were conducted without the necessary subjective impartiality, and that therefore the State violated Article 8.1 in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of Karen Atala Riffo. 238. With regard to Judge Loyola, the Court notes that the file does not contain any evidence that would corroborate the allegation that Mr. Loyola, at a private meeting held in March 2003, had suggested to Ms. Atala that she hand over the custody of her daughters to the father. On the other hand, the Court reiterates that the guarantee of judicial 258 In European case law, see ECHR, Case Kyprianou v. Cyprus, (No. 73797/01), Judgment of January 27, 2004, para. 119 (“In applying the subjective test, the Court has consistently held that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary”), citing ECHR, Case of Hauschildt v. Denmark, (No. 10486/83), Judgment of May 24, 1989, para. 47. 259 Cf. ECHR, Case Kyprianou, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 118 (“a subjective approach, that is endeavoring to ascertain the personal conviction or interest of a given judge in a particular case”). 260 Cf. ECHR, Case Kyprianou, supra note ¡Error! Marcador no definido., para. 119 (“As regards the type of proof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill will or has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal”). Also see ECHR, Case Bellizzi v. Malta, (No. 46575/09), Judgment of June 21, 2011. Final, November 28, 2011, para. 52 and the Case of Cubber v. Belgium, (No. 9186/80), Judgment of October 26, 1996, para. 25. The European Court also noted that the subjective impartiality of a judge may be determined, according to the specific circumstances of the Case, based on the judge’s conduct of the proceeding, the content, arguments and language used in the decision, or the reasons for carrying out the investigation, which would indicate a lack of professional distance regarding the decision. Cf. ECHR, Case Kyprianou v. Cyprus, (No. 73797/01), G.C., Judgment of December 15, 2005, paras. 130 to 133. 71