50. With respect to the Inter-American Court’s case law —as is evident in the preceding section— this contemplates both the independence of the Judiciary as an expression of the principle of the separation of powers in a democratic system, and the independence of judges as their right to exercise their duties and even as a right of citizens to have access to justice and judicial guarantees. 51. Thus, as stated in the preceding section, the Inter-American Court has established that one of the main purposes of the separation of the branches of government is to guarantee the independence of judges. 62 This autonomous exercise must be guaranteed by the State, both in its institutional aspect, in other words, in relation to the Judiciary as a system, as well as in connection with its individual aspect, that is to say, regarding the person of the specific judge. The purpose of protection is to prevent the judicial system in general and its members in particular from being subject to possible undue restrictions in the exercise of their duties, imposed by bodies outside the Judiciary or even by those judges who perform review or appellate functions. 63 The objective of the principle of separation of powers is accomplished in two ways, corresponding to the two aspects mentioned: the institutional and the individual. When the State is required to protect the Judiciary as a system, there is a tendency to guarantee its external independence. When it is required to provide individual protection to a specific judge, there is a tendency to guarantee its internal independence. 52. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has held that Article 8(1) of the Convention acknowledges that “[e]very person has the right to a hearing […] by an independent judge or tribunal […].” The terms in which this article is worded indicate that the subject of that right is the defendant, the person facing the judge who will decide the case submitted to him. 64 Two obligations emerge from that right, referred to in the study of the InterAmerican Court’s case law: the first corresponding to the judge and the second to the State. 65 53. Now, the Inter-American Court has also stated that the aforementioned obligations of the State result, at the same time, in rights for judges or for all other citizens. For example, the guarantee of an adequate appointment process necessarily involves the right of citizens to have access to public service in equal conditions; the guarantee that they will not be subject to discretionary removal implies that the disciplinary and punitive processes applicable to judges must necessarily respect the guarantees of due process and must offer those affected an effective remedy; the guarantee of tenure must translate into adequate conditions of service for judges, in which transfers, promotions and other conditions are sufficiently well-controlled and respected. 66 54. In this specific case, the Inter-American Court considered that “the objective dimension is related to aspects that are essential for the rule of law, such as the principle of separation of powers, and important role played by the Judiciary in a democracy. Consequently, this objective dimension transcends the figure of the judge and collectively 62 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 73. 63 Case 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. 55. 64 Case Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 148. 65 Ibid. para. 146. 66 Ibid. para. 147. 12