this is one of the “basic pillars of the guarantees of due process,” 77 so that when the tenure in office of judges is affected arbitrarily, the right to judicial independence established in Article 8(1) of the Convention is violated.78 86. In addition, the Court has asserted that one of the main objectives of the separation of public powers is, precisely, to guarantee the independence of the judicial authorities.79 It has also emphasized that the State should ensure the autonomous exercise of the judicial function, both its institutional aspect – that is, in relation to the Judiciary as a system – and its individual aspect – that is, in relation to the person of the specific judge. The purpose of this protection is to avoid the judicial system, in general, and its members, in particular, potentially being subject to undue restrictions in the exercise of their functions by organs outside the Judiciary, or even by those who exercise functions of review or appeal.80 87. Consequently, there is a direct relationship between the institutional dimension of judicial independence, and the right of judges to accede to and remain in their posts under general conditions of equality.81 On this basis, the Court has indicated that this judicial independence results in the following guarantees for the office of the judicial authorities: (i) an adequate appointment procedure; (ii) tenure and irremovability, and (iii) protection from external pressures.82 88. Regarding the guarantee of the tenure and irremovability of these authorities, the Court has considered that this entails the following: (i) that separation from office should be due exclusively to permitted causes, either by means of a procedure that complies with judicial guarantees or because the term or mandate has concluded; (ii) that judges may only be dismissed due to serious disciplinary offenses or incompetence, and (iii) that any procedure instituted against judges should be decided based on the established rules for judicial conduct and by just, objective and impartial proceedings, pursuant to the Constitution or the law.83 the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, paras. 188 to 198; Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 147; Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, paras. 190 to 199; Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series C No. 327, para. 105; Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 25, 2017. Series C No. 334, para. 171; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 207; Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, paras. 68 and 69; Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2019. Series C No. 374, paras. 75, 83 and 84; Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 383, paras. 54, 55 and 56; Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, paras. 104 to 110, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, paras. 71 and 72. 77 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 68, and Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 75. See, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14(1); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6(1), and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 26. 78 Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 155, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 192. 79 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 73, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 71. 80 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 55, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 71. 81 Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 154, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 194. 82 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 75; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 70, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 72. 83 Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 155; Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 192, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 72. 22