two specific actions157 that were merely procedural and had no bearing on the proceedings or on the final decisions regarding the conviction imposed on the alleged victim; therefore, there was no violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. It asked the Court to declare that it did not infringe Article 8(2)(e) of the Convention either, given that the Commission did not describe any facts that derive in that violation. 185. In addition, the State indicated that the crime of failure to obey a lawful order had been previously incorrectly classified as offense against the duty and dignity of the service. The change was due to a provision of the Military Code of Justice of the time (Article 616), which was not questioned by the alleged victim or the Commission. It also specified that the alleged victim had the opportunity to defend himself from the beginning of the investigation all the way up to its conclusion. Moreover, it claimed that said reclassification had not affected the rights of the accused, given that it was made based on the same facts included in the Final Report of the Military Judge and the accusation of the Military Prosecutor’s Office. Based on the foregoing, the State asked the Court to declare that it was not responsible for the violation of Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the Convention. C.2. Considerations of the Court C.2.1. Right to an impartial and independent judge 186. The right to be tried by an impartial judge or court is a fundamental guarantee of due process.158 In other words, the person on trial must have the assurance that the judge or court presiding over his case brings to it the utmost objectivity.159 This Court has established that impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a particular dispute should approach the facts of the case lacking any subjective prejudice and, at the same time, offering sufficient guarantees of an objective nature that inspire the necessary trust and confidence in the parties to the case and in the citizens of a democratic society.160 The impartiality of a court requires that its members 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. 161 The judge must appear as acting without being subject to any influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect,162 and only and exclusively in accordance with —and on the basis of— the law.163 187. In the instant case, it can be inferred from the case file that Mr. JRH acted as legal counsel for Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio during the statement given as part of the investigation by the National Police of Peru, and he also acted as advisor to the person who accused Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio, his hierarchical superior Colonel M, during his statement. Subsequently, Mr. JRH was the judge who summoned the alleged victim and other individuals,164 and also took the alleged victim’s These actions were: 1) Regarding the issuing of the order of March 12, 1995, he ordered the reception of the statements of the alleged victim and other persons, and 2) in the proceedings of June 20, 1995, he took the alleged victim’s statement, assisted by a legal secretary; however the alleged victim only answered one question regarding his personal information, he did not answer any other question because he indicated that his legal counsel was in Lima and that he would not sign the corresponding minutes. 158 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 171, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 385. 159 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 171 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 385. 160 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 171 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 385. 161 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 Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 385. 162 Principle 2 of the United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 163 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 Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 385. 164 Cf. Order of the Permanent Military Judge of March 12, 1995. Appendix to the petitioner’s submission of comments of December 8, 2012 (evidence file, folios 87 and 88). 157 42