Committee has considered that, by not respecting the basic requirements of due process, the right to due process established in Article 14239 (the counterpart to Article 8 of the American Convention) is violated, in conjunction with the right to have access on equal terms to public service in his country protected by Article 25(c)240 (the counterpart to Article 23()(c) of the American Convention).241 197. The foregoing elements allow the Court to clarify some aspects of its case law. For instance, in the case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, the Court indicated that the right to an independent judge established in Article 8(1) of the Convention only signified a right of the individual to be tried by an independent court or judge. 242 Nevertheless, it is important to point out that judicial independence should not only be analyzed in relation to the defendant, because the judge must have a series of guarantees that make judicial independence possible. The Court finds it pertinent to clarify that the violation of the guarantee of judicial independence, in relation to the tenure and stability of judges in their functions, must be analyzed in light of the Convention-based rights of judges when they are affected by a decision of the State that arbitrarily affects their term of appointment. In this sense, the institutional guarantee of judicial independence is directly related to a right of the judge to remain in office, as a result of the guarantee of tenure in office. 198. Lastly, the Court has indicated that the State must guarantee the autonomous exercise of the judicial function in both its institutional aspect, that is in relation to the Judiciary as a system, and also in relation to its individual aspect, that is, as regards the person of the specific judge.243 The Court finds it pertinent to clarify that the objective dimension is related to essential aspects of the rule of law, such as the principle of the separation of powers, and the important role played by the judicial function in a democracy. Consequently, this objective dimension transcends the figure of the judge and has a collective impact on society. In addition, a direct relationship exists between the objective dimension of judicial independence and the right of judges to accede to and remain in office under general terms of equality, as an expression of their guarantee of stability. 199. Bearing in mind the standards indicated above, the Court considers that: (i) respect for judicial guarantees entails respect for judicial independence; (ii) the dimensions of judicial independence result in the subjective right of the judge that his removal from office 239 Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes: “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.” 240 Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: […] (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. 241 The Human Rights Committee concluded that ““the dismissal procedure did not respect the requirements of basic procedural fairness and failed to ensure that the author benefited from the necessary guarantees to which he was entitled in his capacity as a judge, thus constituting an attack on the independence of the judiciary. For this reason the Committee concludes that the author’s rights under article 25(c) in conjunction with article 14, paragraph 1, have been violated.” Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1376/2005, Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005, para. 7.2. 242 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 148. 243 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 55, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 67. 59