150. Furthermore, impartiality demands that the judge acting in a specific dispute examine the facts of the case subjectively free of all prejudice, offering sufficient objective guarantees to exclude any doubt the parties or the community might entertain as to his or her lack of impartiality.141 The assurance of impartiality implies that members of the court do not have a direct interest, a given position, a preference for any of the parties, are not involved in the dispute, and that they inspire the necessary confidence in the parties to the case, and in the citizens of a democratic society.142 Personal or subjective impartiality is to be presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary, consisting, for example, of a demonstration that a member of a court or a judge harbors personal prejudices or partialities against the litigants. In turn, the so-called objective impartiality test consists of determining whether the judge in question offered sufficient elements of conviction to allay any legitimate misgivings or well-founded suspicions of partiality regarding his person.143 151. The Court reiterates that a judge’s personal impartiality should be presumed, unless there is evidence to the contrary. For the analysis of subjective impartiality, the Court should attempt to ascertain the personal interests or motivations of the judge in a given case. As to the type of evidence required to prove subjective impartiality, the European Court has indicated that it should try to determine whether the judge has expressed hostility or has endeavored to have the case assigned to him for personal reasons. 144 152. The Court emphasizes that a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention owing to an alleged lack of judicial impartiality must be established based on specific and concrete evidentiary elements that indicate that the judges have clearly been influenced by aspects or criteria unrelated to legal rules.145 In this case, the Court finds no reliable evidence to suggest that the judicial authorities acted with a lack of impartiality or independence that would have decisively influenced their decision. B.3. Right to adequate time and means for the preparation of a defense 153. The right to adequate time and means to prepare a defense, enshrined in Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention, requires the State to guarantee the defendant’s access to the case file against him.146 Similarly, it should respect the adversarial principle, which guarantees the defendant’s involvement in the analysis of the evidence. 147 154. Regarding the adequate means required for the preparation of the defense, this includes all the material and evidence that the prosecution wishes to use against the accused, together with exculpatory documents. Moreover, if a State finds it necessary to restrict the right to defense, it must do so in keeping with the principle of legality, present the legitimate objective that it seeks to achieve, and prove that the means used to this end is suitable, Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 56; and Case V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018, Series C, No. 350, para. 239. 142 Cf. Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C, No. 288, para. 168; and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 239. 143 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 56, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 239. 144 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C, No. 239, para. 234; and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C, No. 354, para. 386. 145 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 190; and Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C, No. 349, para. 197. 146 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, para. 170; and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 205. 147 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, para. 178; and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C, No. 206, para. 54. 141 30