American system have indicated that the guarantees for criminal proceedings apply by analogy, as such processes are the exercise of the State’s punitive power. 31 Taking into account that this case involves the sanction of dismissal of the alleged victim from the positions of provisional judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco, due process guarantees and the principle of legality are applicable, pursuant to articles 8(2) and 9 of the American Convention. 71. The IACHR also highlights that disciplinary processes conducted against operators of justice should be compatible with the principle of judicial independence. The principle of judicial independence is an inherent requirement for a democratic system and a fundamental prerequisite for the protection of human rights.32 It is enshrined as one of the due process guarantees protected by Article 8(1) of the American Convention and, in addition, from the principle are derived the “enhanced”33 guarantees that States should provide to judges in order to ensure their independence.34 The bodies of the inter-American system have interpreted the principle of judicial independence to include the following guarantees: an adequate appointment process, tenure, and protection from external pressures. 35 Specifically with regard to this case, regarding guarantees to ensure tenure, the Court has found that “the scope of judicial independence results in the subjective right of judges to be dismissed exclusively for the reasons permitted, either by a proceeding that complies with judicial guarantees or because their mandate has terminated.” 36 When the permanence of judges in their offices is affected arbitrarily, “the right to judicial independence recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention is violated.”37 2. Principles of legality and favorability38 72. The principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the Convention governs the actions of State bodies when they move to exercise their power to punish.39 As indicated above, the principle is applicable to disciplinary processes that are “an expression of the punitive power of the State” because illegal conduct in these processes can harm or affect the rights of individuals.40 Series C No. 71, paras. 69-70; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011, Series C No. 233, para. 111. 31 IACHR. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A review of the standards adopted by the Inter-American system of human rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129. September 7, 2007, paras. 98-123; and Case No. 12,828, Report 112/12, Marcel Granier et al., Venezuela, Merits, November 9, 2012, para. 188; IACHR. Report No. 42/14. Case 12,453. Merits. Olga Yolanda Maldonado Ordoñez. Guatemala. July 17, 2014. Para. 69; Inter-American Court. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127. 32 IACHR, Merits Report 12,816, Report No. 103/13, November 5, 2013, para. 112. Citing the United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32, CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 19. In this sense, see Cfr. Habeas corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25.1, and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 30. Also see IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, III. Independence and separation of public powers, December 30, 2009. para. 80. 33 Inter-American Court, Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67; IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, December 30, 2009, para. 185; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, December 31, 2011, para. 359. 34 Thus, for example, the Inter-American Court has found that a State’s obligations regarding those tried before courts also give rise to “rights for judges,” among other rights, and among other things, the Court has found that “the guarantee to not be subjected to at-will dismissal means that disciplinary and sanction processes must necessarily respect due process guarantees and offer an effective remedy to those affected.” Inter-American Court. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 147. 35IACHR, Report on Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, paras. 56, 109 and 184, Inter-American Court. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 191. 36 Inter-American Court. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 192. 37 Inter-American Court. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 192. 38 Article 9 of the Convention establishes that “No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom.” 39 IACHR, Criminalization of the Work of Human Rights Defenders, OEA/Ser.L/V/Doc.49/15, December 31, 2015, para. 253. 40 Inter-American Court, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 257 and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 89. Inter-American Court. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 106 and 108. 13