- 71 218. The independence of judges must be guaranteed, including within the Judiciary. This autonomous exercise must be guaranteed by the State as regards both its institutional aspect – that is, in relation to the Judiciary as a system – and also in connection with its individual aspect – that is, in relation to the person of each specific judge. The purpose of the protection is to avoid the judicial system in general, and its members in particular, being subjected to possible undue restrictions in the exercise of their function by bodies outside the Judiciary or even by those justices who exercise functions of review or appeal.376 Defendants have the right, derived from the American Convention, to the judges who decide their disputes being and appearing to be independent.377 219. Expert witness Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez asserted that the “independence [of the judicial authorities from those who exercise disciplinary control] is essential because decisions are at stake that will affect the independence of the courts.” According to this expert, those responsible for disciplinary control must be “given a special status […] in which there is no room for political interference or, evidently, for hierarchical interference, and that permits [them] to function with a system of guarantees that allow them to operate independently and with what, ultimately, will be judicial independence, which is what is at stake in a disciplinary case.”378 When examining the disciplinary regime applied to the presumed victims, the expert indicated that there was no “internal independence, because the [Supreme] Court was the organ with higher administrative rank than all the other judges and courts, given that the said court dealt with both judicial and regulatory matters.”379 This Court finds that the hierarchical relationship and the functional dependence of the Judicial Service Council on the Supreme Court (supra para. 79),380 whose decisions it was reviewing, affected its independence when deciding the appeals filed by the presumed victims. 220. Furthermore, according to the domestic norms, the Judicial Service Council was competent to hear and decide appeals filed against the decisions of the Personnel Management Directorate381 376 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 55, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para.188. 377 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 114 and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 103. 378 Expert opinion provided by Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez during the public hearing in this case. 379 Written report of expert witness Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez presented during the public hearing held in this case (merits file, folio 1335). In similar terms to those used by this Court supra para. 218, according to the said expert, the principle of independence has an external aspect (faced with possible interference from other organs of power) and an internal aspect; and each of these aspects has an institutional and a functional facet. According to the expert: “the internal independence of the institutional facet requires a horizontal model of organization, so that the interrelationship between judges and courts responds only to a judicial criterion, inherent in the chain of authority; so that the relationships of supra- and subordination between them is exclusively procedural in nature and not hierarchic and administrative, [… while] the internal independence in the functional order, […] seeks to avoid possible interference in the judicial activity by other judges, over and above legitimate interference owing to interventions based on legally established remedies.” Written report of expert witness Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez presented during the public hearing held in this case (merits file, folios 1300 and 1301). 380 In addition to articles 7 and 8 of the Judicial Service Act (supra nota 375), article 9 established that: “The Judicial Service Council has the following authority: (a) To elaborate and approve its rules of procedure; (b) To recommend to the Supreme Court of Justice the policy that it should follow as regard personnel management; (c) To examine general problems related to the personnel management system and to make any recommendations it deems appropriate to the Directorate to resolve them; (d) To propose the regulations referred to in paragraphs (c), (d) and (f) of article 12 of this Act to the Supreme Court of Justice for its approval; (e) To examine and decide: 1. Any problems, disputes and claims presented with regard to personnel management and those that arise between the Directorate and the personnel as a result of the application of this Act. 4(2) The admissible remedies filed against the decisions of the Personnel Management Directorate.” Judicial Service Act (evidence file, folios 4152 and 4153). 381 According to article 7(e)(1) of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council: “[t]he powers of the [Judicial Service] Council are to examine and decide […] admissible appeals established in the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations that are filed against the decisions of the Personnel Management Directorate” (evidence file, folio 211).