22 such a system exists, should be based on objective factors, in particular on ability, integrity and experience.” 76 Finally, the Basic Principles state that the 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 “all disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.” 77 Similarly, the Human Rights Committee has pointed out that the judges may only be removed for grave disciplinary offenses or incapacity and according to fair procedures that guarantee objectivity and impartiality according to the constitution or law. 78 Additionally, the Committee has expressed that “the dismissal of judges by the Executive Power before the expiration of the term of office for which they were appointed, without giving them a specific reason and without having an effective judicial protection to appeal the dismissal, is not compatible with judicial independence.” 79 82. Regarding this requirement, the European Court has ruled that the guaranteed permanence of judges for as long their mandate lasts has to be seen as a corollary to the judicial independence enshrined in Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 80 83. In line with those principles, the Court has said that the authority in charge of the process for the dismissal of a judge must act independently and impartially in the proceedings established for that purpose and allow the exercise of the right of defense. 81 As the Court has stated, the free removal of judges fosters an objective doubt in the observer regarding the effective possibility they may have to decide specific controversies without fearing retaliation. 82 84. It is worth to mention that within the context of the Inter-American System, the institution of impeachment (juicio político) has been recognized as a legitimate mechanism of control. In the case of the Constitucional Tribunal v. Peru, the Inter-American Court stated that: Under the rule of law, the impeachment proceeding is a means of controlling senior officials of both the Executive and other State organs exercised by the Legislature. However, this control does not mean that the organ being controlled – in this case the Constitutional Court – is subordinate to the controlling organ – in this case the Legislature; but rather that the intention of the latter is that an organ that represents the people may examine and take decisions on the actions of senior officials 83 . 76 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 76. Citing: No. 13 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 77 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 77. Citing: Nos. 18 and 19 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 78 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 77. Citing: United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14, para. 20. 79 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 77. Citing: United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14, para. 20. 80 ECHR, Campbell and Fell, Judgment of June 28, 1984, Series A No. 80, para. 80; ECHR, Engel and Others, Judgment, Series A No. 22, pp. 27-28, para. 68. 81 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 78. Citing: Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 74. 82 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 78. See also: Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 83 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para, 63.