37 have the utmost objectivity in the proceeding.131 In this respect, the Inter-American Court and the IACHR have established that the guarantee of impartiality has a subjective aspect and an objective aspect.132 The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations has issued decisions in similar terms.133 More specifically, the Inter-American Court has indicated: impartiality demands that the judge acting in a specific dispute approach the facts of the case subjectively free of all prejudice and also offer sufficient objective guarantees to exclude any 134 doubt the parties or the community might entertain as to his or her lack of impartiality. 147. In more detail, the Inter-American Court has indicated that the impartiality of the court implies that its members not have a direct interest, a position taken, and that they not be involved in the dispute, among others.135 The Court has found that “In order to safeguard the administration of justice, it must be assured that a judge is free from any prejudice and there is no fear at all raising any doubts about the exercise of his jurisdictional functions.”136 148. In this regard, the European Court has ruled in particular cases related to the application of the system of military discipline, indicating that while the organization of that system corresponds to the internal order of each state137, the activity of the military authorities in the judicial function can trigger the international responsibility of the State to the extent that their decisions not satisfy the guarantee of impartiality. In the precedents established by the European Court, that guarantee was violated since the very structuring of the system established in the military jurisdiction allowed an officer to be vested with authority in the proceeding even when he was also the superior of the person subject to it.138 131 I/A Court H.R. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 117; I/A Court H.R. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 171; I/A Court H.R. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 145. 132 IACHR, Report No. 176/10, Case 12,576 and others, Segundo Aniceto Norin Catriman et al., Merits, Chile, November 5, 2010, para. 280; IACHR, Case 11,139, Report No. 57/96, William Andrews (United States), IACHR Annual Report 1997, paras. 159-161. See also European Court of Human Rights, case of Findlay v. United Kingdom, February 25, 1997, para. 73. IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, para. 229. 133 United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 387/1989, Karttunen v. Finland, para. 7.2. 134 See: I/A Court H.R. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 56, citing, European Court of Human Rights, Case of Piersack v. Belgium, Judgment of October 1, 1982, Series A no. 53; European Court of Human Rights, Case of De Cubber v. Belgium, Judgment of October 26, 1984, Series A no. 86; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Pullar v. United Kingdom, Judgment of June 10, 1996; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Fey v. Austria, Judgment of February 24, 1993, Series A no. 255-A p. 8, § 28. 135 I/A Court H.R. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 118; I/A Court H.R. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 147. 136 I/A Court H.R. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 118; I/A Court H.R. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 147. 137 138 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Engel et al. v. Netherlands. Judgment of June 8, 1976, para. 59. European Court of Human Rights, Case of Findlay v. United Kingdom. Judgment of February 25, 1997, paras. 73-80; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Thompson v. United Kingdom. Judgment of June 15, 2004, paras. 46 to 48.