Convention, this demands that the authority that intervenes approaches the facts free, in a subjective way, of all prejudice and, offering sufficient guarantees of objectiveness that permit the banishment of all doubts that justice or the community may have with regard to the absence of impartiality.90 The impartiality of the court implies that its members do not have a direct interest, a pre-determined position, a preference for one of the parties, and they are not involved in the controversy.91 The European Court has explained that personal or subjective impartiality is presumed unless there evidence otherwise. For its part, the objective test consists in determining whether there are ascertainable facts which may raise doubts as to the judge’s impartiality.92 131. With regard to the right to appeal, the IACHR recalls that said right is part of due process of law in a disciplinary sanctions proceeding,93 and is a guarantee whose purpose is to avoid miscarriage of justice becoming res judicata.94 In relation to the scope of the right to appeal, both the IACHR and the Court have stated that this requires a review by a different and higher judge or court and on both issues of fact and law of the appealed decision.95 The appeal must proceed before the judgment becomes res judicata, it must be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, it must be timely and effective, i.e. it must provide a result or answer as required. In addition, it must be accessible, without requiring major formalities, which could render the right illusory. 96 132. Finally, the IACHR recalls that the State has the general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to persons alleging human rights violations (Article 25), which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)). For the existence of an effective recourse it is not enough that it is established by law, it must be truly appropriate to determine whether there has been a violation of human rights and to provide everything necessary to remedy it.97 2. Analysis of the present case 133. First, in relation to the guarantee of objective impartiality of the disciplinary authority, in the instant case there were two disciplinary proceedings that imposed the sanction of disqualification against the alleged victim, and in one his dismissal, and both the charges and sanctions were issued by the same organ. With regard to the first process, the charges were laid on June 20, 2013, by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation and the decision to sanction was issued on December 9, 2013, by the same Disciplinary Chamber. With regard to the second process, the charges were made on August 10, 2015, by the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation and the decision to sanction was issued on June 27, 2016, by the Inspector General of the Nation. 134. The Commission observes that in the present case that the same body exercised in each proceeding the functions of both filing charges and later adopting a decision on the same. This is troublesome vis-á-vis the guarantee of impartiality, particularly from the perspective of objectiveness, because it implies that the disciplinary authority would first have an idea of the facts and the way in which they fit the specific 90 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Judicial Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas. OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 200. 91 IACHR, Report No. 103/13, Case 12.816, Merits, Adán Guillermo Lopez Lone et. al., Honduras, November 5, 2013, para.136. 92 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Judicial Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas. OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 200. 93 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Judicial Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas. OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 235.; I/A Court of H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 179. 94IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para.186. 95IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para.186. 96IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para.186 and following. 97I/A Court, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, paras. 125; I/A Court, Case of Indigenous Community of Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; I/A Court, Case of the "Five Pensioners." Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136. 25