representatives of the president166. As a result of the issuance of this order, Correa's lawyers denounced the judge for allegedly issuing an order of false content. Also, as a result of a previous disciplinary process, on May 17 Judge Sierra was notified of a suspension for a duration of 90 days. Although the State mentioned that the suspension "was due to the action of said official within the framework of a process of precautionary measures, unrelated to the criminal proceeding against the petitioners,”167 it does not detract from the content of the ruling drafted by the then official who points to indirect pressures to which the justice operators would have been subjected. The IACHR notes that "[i]f States do not guarantee the safety of their justice operators against all kinds of external pressures, including reprisals directly aimed at attacking their person and family, the exercise of the jurisdictional function may be seriously affected, affecting access to justice”168. 150. With respect to the precautionary measures filed on August 24 before the Tenth Court of Children and Adolescents of Guayas, which was admitted and ordered the cloning of the hard drive of the computer used by the Fifteenth Court of Criminal Guarantees of the Guayas, where the trial was carried out and the judgment of first instance was issued, with the purpose of knowing the information on the computer file that contained the text presented in the first instance judgment, the Council of the Judiciary proceeded to open an investigation against the officials involved in the diligence. Among the officials under investigation, was the then judge Oswaldo Sierra who initially heard the case as the natural judge. In this context, the Commission notes that although it was a separate process, the measure was linked to the process that was being carried out against Emilio Palacio Urrutia and the executives of El Universo, for which the aforementioned administrative measure seriously violated the guarantee of independence of the judges and generated pressures from the same judicial body. The Commission observes that the precautionary measure proposed was intended to shed light on alleged interference in the process of drafting the first instance judgment. According to the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, the State is obligated to guarantee that "provisional judges are independent”169. 151. On the other hand, the State does not invalidate the information provided by the petitioners with respect to the interference that could have affected the independence of the temporary judge Paredes in the preparation of the first instance judgment. Based on the aforementioned precautionary measure, an expert test was carried out on the hard disk of the court in which the first instance judgment was issued. According to the results of the expertise, a series of conclusions were reached that show that the computer file containing said judgment was not created in the computer equipment of the corresponding court, but that it came from an external equipment170. Although this fact in itself would not reveal who drafted the judgment, through testimonies and public interviews to Mónica Encalada, who heard the case temporarily, the temporary judge Juan Paredes would have admitted having received the text of the judgment by one of Correa’s lawyers. 152. The IACHR emphasizes that it is up to each State to protect the operators of justice from attacks, acts of intimidation, threats, and harassment, investigating those who commit violations against their rights and effectively punishing them. Otherwise, if States do not guarantee the safety of their justice operators against all kinds of external pressures, including reprisals directly aimed at attacking their person and family, the exercise of the jurisdictional function can be seriously affected, impeding access to Justice171. From the foregoing, it appears that the judges acted under pressure and without the necessary guarantees to ensure their independence and impartiality. 153. On the other hand, for the determination of the hearing of appeal and nullity, the ruling of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of the District of Guayas, on August 16, expressly stated that "video recordings cannot be made of the hearing". Nonetheless, the IACHR notes that the appeal hearing was recorded and transmitted publicly. However, with this measure the State acted irregularly, 166 Annex 36. Order of May 12, 2011. Annex No. 7 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 167 Fact affirmed by the State in its brief of observations submitted to the Commission on December 13, 2016. 168 IACHR. Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 44. December 5, 2013. Para.147. 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. 43 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 117. 169 Annex 37. Technical Report prepared by Engineer Alex Rivera Calero. Annex No. of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 170 171 IACHR. Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 44. December 5, 2013. Para. 147. 32