documentation on the public processes and competitions that the judges who were provisionally elected to hear the process had to pass. In accordance with what was stated by the parties, the normative framework in force at that time was the Organic Code of the Judicial Function [Código Orgánico de la Función Judicial]. In this sense, article 72 regulates what refers to the "Eligible bank" and article 214 regulates what relates to the "subrogation of the judge or the head judge". The first article states in its first paragraph, "[t]hose who pass the initial training course, having been declared eligible in the competitions of opposition and merits, and yet not being appointed, will be included in a bank of eligible persons that will be in charge of the Human Resources Unit". The second article provides in its first paragraph, "[i]n case of foul, impediment, or excuse of the head judge, or any of the situations established in the law, the temporary judge shall replace them, who shall be appointed by lottery of the eligible bank that will be integrated in accordance with the provisions of this Code. " 146. The Commission highlights the lack of clarity regarding the appointment of the temporary judges who took part in the case, especially in the understanding that the appointment of provisional or temporary judges constitutes an exceptional situation. In this context, the State did not provide substantial documentation on the process for appointing temporary judges, particularly on the "initial training course", the approved "opposition and merits" contest and the declaration of "eligible". In addition, the IACHR observes the lack of control and publicity in the process of selecting the judges in the specific case, since according to the drawing certifications, there is no feature of the participation, scrutiny, and control by the alleged victims or their representatives. 147. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State did not guarantee the principle of competence in accordance with Article 8.1 of the Convention, on the understanding that it failed to demonstrate sufficient and effective actions to guarantee the competence of the judges who heard the case in the first instance. 1.3 Principle of independence 148. The Commission has mentioned that the principle of judicial independence is an inherent requirement of a democratic system and a fundamental prerequisite for the protection of human rights162. In this sense, it is enshrined as one of the guarantees of due process protected by Article 8.1 of the American Convention and, in addition, from this principle, in turn, "reinforced"163 guarantees emerge which States must provide to judges in order to ensure their independence164. The organs of the inter-American system have interpreted the principle of judicial independence in the sense of incorporating the following guarantees: adequate appointment process, tenure in office, and guarantee against external pressures165. 149. According to the document support observed, on May 12, 2011, the secretariat of the Fifteenth Court of Criminal Guarantees of Guayas, which at that time was headed by Judge Oswaldo Sierra, notified the parties of an order in which it informed that court officials were mistreated by the lawyers of Rafael Correa. Likewise, the ruling expresses that Correa's lawyers stated they deserve a "special treatment" for being IACHR, Report on the Merits 12. 816, Report No. 103/13, November 5, 2013, para. 112. Citing See, United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32, CCPR / C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para.19. See in this regard Cf. Habeas Corpus under Suspension of Guarantees (articles 27.2, 25.1, and 7.6 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 30. See also, IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, III. Separation and independence of public authorities, December 30, 2009, para. 80 162 I/A Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67; IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights, December 30, 2009, para. 185. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2009eng/VE09.TOC.eng.htm; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, December 31, 2011, para. 359 163 Thus, for example, the Inter-American Court has indicated that part of the obligations that the State has for the persons subject to proceedings before the courts, "rights for judges" arise in turn, among them, the Court has indicated that "the guarantee to not be subject to free removal means that the disciplinary and sanctioning processes of judges must necessarily respect the guarantees of due process and an effective remedy should be offered to those affected" I/A Court H.R., 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. 147. 164 165IACHR. Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 44. December 5, 2013. Paras. 56, 109, and 184; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 191. 31