by organs outside the Judiciary, or even by those judges who exercise functions of review and appeal.60 44. The Court insisted once again on the guarantees that result from judicial independence: an adequate appointment procedure, tenure, and the guarantee against external pressure, and stated that the authority in charge of the procedure to remove a judge must act with independence and impartiality in the proceeding established to that end, and permit the exercise of the right of defenses. This is because the removal of judges at will leads to the objective doubt of the observer about their real possibility of deciding specific disputes without fear of reprisal.61 45. The ICourtHR reiterated that, even though titular and provisional judges have the same guarantees, they do not provide equal protection for the two types of judge, because provisional and temporary judges are, by definition, appointed in a different way and do not have an unlimited permanence in office. Thus, provisional and temporary judges have not proved that they have the qualifications and aptitude to exercise the office with the guarantees of transparency imposed by public competition. However, this does not mean that provisional and temporary judges should not have an appointment procedure because, according to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary: “[a]ny method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives.” 46. In addition, the Inter-American Court stated that, in the same way in which the State is obliged to guarantee an adequate appointment procedure for provisional judges, it must guarantee them a certain stability in office. In this way, in the case of provisional judges, the guarantee of stability translates into the requirement that they can enjoy all the benefits of tenure until the resolutory condition that ends their mandate. 47. The ICourtHR also indicated that the stability of provisional judges is closely linked to the guarantee against external pressure, because if provisional judges do not have certainty about their permanence for a specific time, they will be vulnerable to pressure from different sectors, above all from those who have the power to decide on dismissals or promotions in the Judiciary.62 48. The Inter-American Court also stated that provisional appointments should be exceptional in nature and not the rule, and that they should not be extended indefinitely.63 49. It also indicated that any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, whose decisions may affect the rights of the individual, is required to adopt these decisions with full respect for the guarantees of due process of law. In addition, it reiterated that, any organ of the State that exercises functions of a substantially jurisdictional nature, is obliged to adopt decisions that abide by the guarantees of due process of law in the terms of Article 8 of the American Convention.64 60 Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 97. 61 Ibidem, para. 99. 62 Ibidem, paras. 104 to 106. 63 Ibidem, para. 107. 64 Ibidem, para. 115. 12