Independence of the Judiciary (hereinafter “Basic Principles”218), the following guarantees are required for judicial independence: an appropriate appointment procedure, 219 tenure,220 and a guarantee against external pressure.221 189. Among the elements of tenure that are relevant for this case, the Basic Principles establish that “[t]he term of office of judges […] shall be adequately secured by law,” 222 and that “[j]udges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.”223 Also, the Human Rights Committee has indicated that judges may be dismissed only on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence, in accordance with fair procedures ensuring objectivity and impartiality set out in the Constitution or the law.224 This Court has endorsed these principles and has asserted that the authority in charge of the procedure for the dismissal of a judge must behave independently and impartially in the procedure established to this end and must allow the exercise of the right of defense. 225 This is so, because the free removal of judges fosters an objective doubt in the observer about the real possibility of judges to decide specific disputes without fear of reprisal.226 190. Regarding the guarantee against external pressure, the Basic Principles stipulate that “[t]he judiciary shall decide matters before them […] on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”227 The said 218 United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary adopted by the Seventh Congress of the United Nations on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in Milan, Italy, from 26 August to 6 September 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985, and 40/146 of 13 December 1985. 219 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 75, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 98. See also, European Court of Human Rights, Case of Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 June 1984, para. 78; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Langborger v. Sweden, Judgment of 22 January 1989, para. 32, and Principle 10 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 220 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 75, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 98. See also, Principle 12 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 221 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 75, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 98. See also, Principles 2, 3 and 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 222 Cf. Principle 11 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 223 Principle 12 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 224 Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, para. 20. In addition, in the same General Comment the Committee stated that “[t]he dismissal of judges by the executive, e.g. before the expiry of the term for which they have been appointed, without any specific reasons given to them and without effective judicial protection being available to contest the dismissal is incompatible with the independence of the judiciary” (para. 20). In addition, the Basic Principles establish that “Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour 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.” Principles 18 and 19 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 225 99. Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 74, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 226 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 44, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 99. See also, Principles 2, 3 and 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 227 Principle 2 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 56