- 76 immediate capture of former President Zelaya398 (supra paras. 49 and 62). In addition, between June 28, 2009, and August 21, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice issued five press communiqués justifying the legality of what had happened (supra para. 65). 232. Specifically, regarding the need to provide guarantees of impartiality in the proceedings, the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’état asserted that “[t]he public stance of the Supreme Court, defining the coup as a “constitutional succession” and declaring its legality, cast doubt on its impartiality and commitment to the rule of law,” and also “the lack of independence of the judiciary and the unequal and discriminatory application and interpretation of the law have been evident.”399 In July 2011, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended to Honduras that it “[u]ndertake all necessary measures to ensure the independence of the judiciary, including by putting an end to any intimidation or unjustified disciplinary procedures against judges perceived as critical of the coup.”400 233. This Court has indicated that impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a dispute must approach the facts of the case subjectively, without any prejudice, and also offering sufficient guarantees of an objective nature that permit the elimination of any doubt that the defendant or the community could harbor as to the absence of impartiality.401 The European Court of Human Rights has explained that personal or subjective impartiality is presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary.402 Meanwhile, so-called objective impartiality consists in determining whether the judge in question provided sufficient elements of conviction to eliminate any legitimate fears or well-founded suspicion about his partiality.403 This is because the judge must act without being subject to improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect,404 and only and exclusively according to – and based on – the law.405 234. Based on the above, and added to the findings in paragraphs 148 to 155 of this judgment, the Court considers that the Supreme Court did not meet the objective requirements of impartiality to decide the disciplinary proceedings of the victims in this case. C. Right to remain in office on general terms of equality 235. The Court has indicated that the guarantee of stability or tenure of the judge is related to the right to remain in public office, on general terms of equality.406 Indeed, in the case of Reverón 398 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice. Search order. June 29, 2009. Available at: https://www.oas.org/es/sap/docs/DSDME/ 2011/CVR/Honduras%20-%20Informe%20CVR%20-%20TOMO-II-4.pdf 399 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’état on 28 June 2009. Doc. UN A/HRC/13/66, March 3, 2010, paras. 68 and 73 (merits file, folios 1292 and 1293). 400 United Nations, General Assembly. Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review. Honduras, A/HRC/16/10, 4 January 2011. Recommendation 82.56. Available at: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/100 /65/PDF/G1110065.pdf?OpenElement 401 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 220. 402 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, citing: ECHR, Case of Daktaras v. Lithuania, No. 42095/98. Judgment of October 10, 2000, para. 30. 403 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, citing: ECHR, Case of Piersack v. Belgium, No. 8692/79. Judgment of October 1, 1982, and Case of De Cubber v. Belgium, No. 9186/80. Judgment of October 26, 1984. 404 Principle 2 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 405 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56. 406 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 43; and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 135.