- 65 17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge. 18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties. 19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.357 199. Other standards differentiate between the applicable sanctions. Tenure implies that dismissal is due to fairly serious conducts, while the other sanctions may be used in the case of negligence or incapacity.358 200. Taking the above considerations into account, this Court establishes that the guarantee of tenure for judges means that: (i) their removal must be exclusively the result of the permitted reasons, either by means of a procedure that respects judicial guarantees or because their mandate has ended; (ii) judges may only be dismissed owing to serious disciplinary offenses or incompetence; (iii) any disciplinary procedure against a judge must be decided in accordance with the established norms for judicial conduct in fair proceedings that ensure objectivity and impartiality pursuant to the Constitution or the law (supra paras. 196, 198 and 199). 201. Furthermore, the Court underscores that Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter establishes that “[e]ssential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law; […] and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.”359 The arbitrary dismissal of judges, especially professional judges, in the absence of prior disciplinary offenses, based on their actions against the coup d’état and the actions of the Supreme Court in that regard, as in this case, constitute an attack on judicial independence and harm the democratic order. The Court stresses that judicial independence, including within the Judiciary, is closely related not only to the consolidation of the democratic system, but also seeks to preserve the human rights and freedoms of every citizen. 357 Principles 17, 18 and 19 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 358 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 148, citing the Recommendation of the Council of Europe on the Independence, Efficiency and Role of Judges, which stipulate: Principle I – General principles on the Independence of judges [...] 2. […] (a) (i) decisions of judges should not be the subject of any revision outside any appeals procedures as provided for by law; […] Principle VI – Failure to carry out responsibilities and disciplinary offences. 1. When judges fail to carry out their duties in an efficient and proper manner or in the event of disciplinary offences, all necessary measures which do not prejudice judicial independence should be taken. Depending on the constitutional principles and the legal provisions and traditions of each state, such measures may include, for instance: (a) withdrawal of cases from the judge; (b) moving the judge to other judicial tasks within the court; (c) economic sanctions such as a reduction in salary for a temporary period; (d) suspension. 2. Appointed judges may not be permanently removed from office without valid reasons until mandatory retirement. Such reasons, which should be defined in precise terms by the law, could apply in countries where the judge is elected for a certain period, or may relate to incapacity to perform judicial functions, commission of criminal offences or serious infringements of disciplinary rules. 3. Where measures under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article need to be taken, states should consider setting up, by law, a special competent body which has as its task to apply any disciplinary sanctions and measures, where they are not dealt with by a court, and whose decisions shall be controlled by a superior judicial organs, or which is a superior judicial organ itself. The law should provide for appropriate procedures to ensure that judges in question are given at least all the due process requirements of the Convention, for instance that the case should be heard within a reasonable time and that they should have a right to answer any charges.” European Union, Committee of Minister. Recommendation No. R (94) 12 on the Independence, Efficiency and Role of Judges, October 13, 1994. 359 Inter-American Democratic Charter, article 3.