27 123. First of all, the Commission will analyze the claims alleging a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the prosecutors and judges responsible for the investigation and prosecution of Allan Brewer Carías. It will also examine the claims alleging that domestic law is inadequate, because of circumstances surrounding the appointment and tenure of judges and prosecutors, for upholding Allan Brewer Carías’s right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. 124. It should first be noted that judicial independence is an essential guarantee if judicial systems are to discharge their duties adequately in a democratic society. The legitimacy of judges’ decisions and, consequently, the legitimacy of the judiciary depend on that guarantee. Accordingly, the Commission recalls the importance of the State’s duty of ensuring and promoting the independence and 95 impartiality of its judicial system. In addition, the Inter-American Court has said that “one of the principal purposes of the separation of public powers is to guarantee the independence of judges” and, to that end, 96 different political systems have devised strict procedures, for both appointments and removals; the Court has also stated that “the principle of judicial independence constitutes one of the basic pillars of the guarantees of the due process, reason for which it shall be respected in all areas of the proceeding and before all the procedural instances in which decisions are made with regard to the person’s rights. The Court has considered that the principle of judicial independence results necessary for the protection of fundamental rights, reason for which its scope shall be guaranteed even in special situations, such as the 97 state of emergency.” 125. In the case at hand, the Commission has established that between 2002 and 2005, at least four provisional prosecutors investigated the facts surrounding the drafting of the “Carmona Decree,” along with other facts related to the events of April 11 to 13, 2002. In addition, it has established that on January 27, 2005, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor filed charges against Allan Brewer Carías and that both the investigation and the criminal proceedings were conducted, at the preliminary stage, by temporary judges. 126. As for the context, the Commission has established that the judges who made up the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeal – and who, on January 31, 2005, voted to annul the order preventing 27 of the people accused in connection with the enactment of the Carmona Decree from leaving the country – were suspended from duty on February 3, 2005, by the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice. That same Commission also suspended Temporary Judge Josefina Gómez Sosa for having failed to give adequate grounds for that same ban. 127. The Commission has also established that Control Judge Manuel Bognanno, who replaced Judge Gómez Sosa, was likewise suspended from duty on June 29, 2005, after writing, on June 27, 2005, to the senior prosecutor of the Caracas Metropolitan Area prosecution service to inform him of “alleged obstruction” on the part of the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor in the criminal proceedings against Allan Brewer Carías, by failing to inform the Court of the deadline set by the Public Ministry for presentation of the conclusions, and to ask the Public Ministry to “assume an objective attitude, aimed at cooperating with and not hindering the actions of the court.” 128. In its 2003 Report on Venezuela, the Commission determined that provisional judges were those did not enjoy security of tenure in their positions and could be freely removed or suspended, which could imply a conditioning of their actions, in that they might not feel legally protected from undue 95 See: I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 67. See: IACHR, Report 48/00, Case 11.166, Merits, Walter Humberto Vásquez Bejarano, Peru, April 13, 2000, para. 44. 96 See: Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 73; and 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. 55. 97 I/A Court H. R., Case of Rever��n Trujillo v. Venezuela, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 68. See: Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27.2, 25.1, and 7.6 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, January 30, 1987, Series A No. 8, para. 30; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Series A No. 9, January 30, 1987, para. 20.