appropriate process of appointment, 181 guaranteed tenure 182 and guarantees against external pressures. 183 145. Regarding the scope of security of tenure relevant to this case, the Basic Principles establish that “[t]he term of office of judges […] shall be adequately secured by law” 184 and that “[j]udges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until the mandatory retirement age or the expiry of the term of office, where such exists.” 185 Moreover, the Human Rights Committee has stated that judges may be dismissed only on grounds of serious misconduct or incompetence, in accordance with fair procedures ensuring objectivity and impartiality set out in the Constitution or the law. 186 This Court has accepted these principles and has stated that the authority responsible for the process of removing a judge must act independently and impartially in the procedure established for that purpose and must allow for the exercise of the right to defense. 187 This is so because the free removal of judges raises the objective doubt of the observer regarding the judges’ real possibilities of ruling on specific disputes without fear of reprisals. 188 146. As to the guarantees against external pressures, the Basic Principles require that judges shall decide a matter before them “on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.” 189 Moreover, these Principles establish that “[t]here shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process.” 190 147. Nevertheless, judges do not have absolute guarantees of tenure in their positions. International human rights law accepts that judges may be dismissed for conduct that is clearly unacceptable. In General Comment No. 32, the Human Rights Committee has established that judges may be dismissed only for reasons of serious misconduct or 181 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 75, and Case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 98. See also European Court of Human Rights, Case of Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, Judgment of June 28, 1984, para. 78; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Langborger v. Sweden, Judgment of January 22, 1989, para. 32, and Principle 10 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 182 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 75, and Case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 98. See also Principle 12 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 183 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 75, and Case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 98. See also Principles 2, 3 and 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 184 Principle 11 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 185 Principle 12 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 186 Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to Equality before Tribunals and Courts and to a Fair Trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, para. 20. In the same General Comment the Committee also states that “The dismissal of judges by the executive, for example before the expiry of the term for which they have been appointed, without any specific reasons given to them and without effective judicial protection being available to contest the dismissal, is incompatible with the independence of the judiciary” (para. 20). Similarly, the Basic Principles establish that judges “shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behavior that renders them unfit to discharge their duties” and that “[a]ll disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.” Principles 18 and 19 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 187 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 74, and Case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 99. 188 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, para. 44, and Case Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 99. See also Principles 2, 3 and 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 189 Principle 2 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 190 Principle 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 44