63. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that, due to the composition of the jury, it is not possible to affirm that the process before the JEM has not provided procedural mechanisms to ensure the guarantees of due process. On the contrary, in the opinion of this Court, the elements to which reference has been made allow us to affirm that the exercise of the Jury's duties took place within a framework of previous, clear, and objective criteria contained in the law and the Constitution that limit the activity of the jury and reinforce the control exercised. In light of the foregoing, the Court considers that it was not verified that the process before the Jury for the Impeachment of Magistrates in its normative configuration has violated the principle of judicial independence, nor the right of the alleged victim to have a competent and independent court. B.3. Alleged violation of the guarantee of an impartial judge 64. This Court has established that impartiality demands that the judge acting in a specific dispute approach the facts of the case subjectively, free of all prejudice and also offer sufficient objective guarantees to eliminate any doubt the parties or the community might entertain as to his or her lack of impartiality.73 This guarantee implies that the members of the Court have no direct interest in, a pre-established viewpoint on, or a preference for one of the parties, and that they are not involved in the dispute,74 but that they act only and exclusively in accordance with —and on the basis of— the Law.75 65. Personal or subjective impartiality is to be presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary, and consists, for example, of a showing that a member of the court or the competent authority is personally biased or prejudiced against the litigants. Meanwhile, what is known as the objective approach test consists of determining whether the judge in question offered sufficient elements of conviction to exclude any legitimate misgivings or well-grounded suspicion of partiality regarding his or her person.76 Furthermore, the Court has pointed out that challenging is a procedural means of protecting the right to a hearing by an impartial body, while at the same time it seeks to lend credibility to the duty performed by said jurisdiction.77 66. As stated in this Ruling, in proceedings brought against judicial authorities, which may eventually lead to their removal, the guarantee of irremovability that protects them, in order to safeguard their independence, requires that such proceedings be processed and decided with objectivity and impartiality, i.e., as required by the guarantees of due process (supra paras. 57 a 59). 67. In the instant case, the representative alleged that the president of the JEM, as well as other representatives and senators who are members of the Jury, had an interest Cf. 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. 56, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 131. 73 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 146, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 131. 74 75 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 118. Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, and Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 131. 76 77 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 63, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 119. 21