This is essential because freely removing judicial authorities leads to objective concerns about their real possibility of exercising their functions without fear of reprisals.84 89. All the foregoing is based on the important role that judges play in a democracy 85 as guarantors of human rights,86 and this requires that their independence be recognized and safeguarded, especially in relation to the other powers of the State.87 To the contrary, their work could be hindered to the point of preventing them from being able to determine, declare and eventually punish arbitrary acts that could involve the violation of those rights, and to order the corresponding reparation.88 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 44, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 72. 85 Cf. 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. In this regard, the United Nations General Assembly has declared that “the independence of the judicial system, together with its impartiality and integrity, is an essential prerequisite for upholding the rule of law.” United Nations, General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/1 of September 24, 2002. For its part, in 2002, the then United Nations Human Rights Commission identified, among “essential elements for democracy,” respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the independence of the judiciary. Cf. United Nations Human Rights Commission, Further measures to promote and consolidate democracy, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2002/46, of April 23, 2002, para. 1. Furthermore, the Human Rights Council has indicated that the independence of the judicial system “is an essential prerequisite for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, for upholding the rule of law and democracy.” Human Rights Council, Integrity of the judicial system, A/HRC/37/L.11/Rev.1 (2018), and Independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors, and the independence of lawyers, A/HRC/44/L.7 (2020). Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that judicial independence is “one of the most important values underpinning the effective functioning of democracies.” ECHR, Case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, No. 21722/11. Judgment of January 9, 2013, para. 199. 86 The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers at the time stated that “[i]n any democratic society, judges are the guardians of rights and fundamental freedoms. Judges and courts undertake the judicial protection of human rights, ensure the right of appeal, combat impunity and ensure the right to reparation.” Human Rights Commission, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Sr. Leandro Despouy, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/60, December 31, 2003, para. 30. Similarly, regarding the function of judges as “protectors of human acts” the expert opinion of José Ramón Cossío Díaz, provided during the public hearing before this Court. 87 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, supra, para. 145. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that “[t]he mission of the judiciary in a democratic state is to guarantee the very existence of the rule of law.” ECHR, Case of Harabin v. Slovakia, No. 58688/11. Judgment of November 20, 2012, para. 133. That Court has indicated that, in a democratic society, the courts must remain free of any political pressure. In this regard, its case law has consistently reiterated that judicial independence necessarily requires that the irremovability of the judicial authorities is ensured and that they have “safeguards against external pressures,” which makes it necessary to consider “how [such authorities] are appointed and the duration of their mandate.” Cf. Inter alia, ECHR, Case of Ringeisen v. Austria, No. 2614/65. Judgment of July 16, 1971, para. 95; Case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyêre v. Belgium [GS], No. 6878/75. Judgment of June 23, 1981, para. 55; Case of X v. The United Kingdom, No. 7215/75. Judgment of November 5, 1981, para. 53; Case of Piersack v. Belgium, No. 8692/79. Judgment of October 1, 1982, para. 27; Case of Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom, No. 7819/77. Judgment of June 28, 1984, paras. 78 and 80; Case of Langborger v. Sweden [GS], No. 11179/84. Judgment of June 22, 1989, para. 32; Case of Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, No. 13427/87. Judgment of December 9, 1994, para. 49; Case of Bryan v. The United Kingdom, No. 19178/91. Judgment of November 22, 1995, para. 37; Case of Findlay v. The United Kingdom, No. 22107/93. Judgment of February 25, 1997, para. 73; Case of Papageorgiou v. Greece, No. 97/1996/716/913. Judgment of October 22, 1997, para. 37; Case of Incal v. Turkey [GS], No. 41/1997/826/1031. Judgment of June 9, 1998, para. 65; Case of Galstyan v. Armenia, No. 26986/03. Judgment of November 15, 2007, para. 62; Case of Guja v. Moldavia [GS], No. 14277/04. Judgment of February 12, 2008, para. 86; Case of Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, No. 23614/08. Judgment of November 30, 2010, para. 45; Case of Khrykin v. Russia, No. 33186/08. Judgment of April 19, 2011, para. 30; Case of Fruni v. Slovakia, No. 8014/07. Judgment of June 21, 2011, para. 145; Case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, No. 21722/11. Judgment of January 9, 2013, para. 103; Case of Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GS], No. 2312/08 and 34179/08. Judgment of July 18, 2013, para. 49; Case of Baka v. Hungary [GS], No. 20261/12. Judgment of June 23, 2016, para. 108; Case of Denisov v. Ukraine [GS], No. 76639/11. Judgment of September 25, 2018, para. 60, Case of Guđmundur Andre ÁstrÁđsson v. Iceland [GS], No. 26374/18. Judgment of December 1, 2020, para. 232, and Case of Xhonxhaj v. Albania, No. 15227/19. Judgment of February 9, 2021, para. 298. 88 The Court has asserted that judicial independence “is not a ‘privilege’ of the judge or an end in itself; rather it is justified because it enables judges to perform their task satisfactorily.” Cf. Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 130. 84 23