34. Regarding judicial independence, the ICourtHR reiterated the importance that this has for the separation of powers, and the State’s obligation to guarantee its institutional aspect, in relation to the Judiciary as a system, as well as with regard to its individual aspect; that is, with regard to the person of the specific judge. 48 Furthermore, impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a particular dispute approaches the facts of the case, subjectively, without any prejudice and, also, offering sufficient objective guarantees that allow any doubts that the defendant or the community may have about the absence of impartiality to be overcome.49 35. The ICourtHR also argued that, under international law, the valid reasons to proceed to suspend or remove a judge may be, inter alia, improper conduct or ineptitude. And judges cannot be removed merely because a decision they made was annulled following an appeal or review by a higher judicial organ.50 In addition, it considered that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to provide the grounds for the sanction of dismissal because it did not analyze whether the inexcusable judicial error constituted a disciplinary offense.51 36. Regarding the victims’ request for evidence in order to clarify a specific aspect of the case, the ICourtHR decided that the disciplinary organ should have provided at least some response, accepting or refusing to produce this evidence, or even ordering that the parties themselves provide it.52 37. In the case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, the ICourtHR examined the arbitrary removal of a judge from the provisional position she occupied on February 6, 2002. On October 13, 2004, the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decreed the annulment of the decision to dismiss her, considering that it was not in keeping with the law, but did not order the reinstatement of the presumed victim, or the payment of the salary and social benefits that she had ceased to receive. 38. In that case, the Inter-American Court indicated that judges, contrary to other public officials, have increased guarantees, owing to the necessary independence of the Judiciary. It reiterated the importance that this has for the separation of powers, and also repeated the State’s obligation to ensure its institutional aspect; that is, in relation to the Judiciary as a system, as well as in relation to its individual aspect; in other words, in relation to the person of the specific judge.53 39. It also insisted on the guarantees that result from judicial independence: an adequate appointment procedure, tenure, and a guarantee against external pressures.54 It recalled that the authority in charge of the removal procedure must act independently and impartially during the proceeding established to this end, and permit the right of defense. 55 48 Ibidem, para. 55. 49 Ibidem, para. 56. 50 Ibidem, para. 84. 51 Ibidem, paras. 86 and 91. 52 Ibidem, para. 94. 53 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67. 54 Ibidem, para. 70. 55 Ibidem, para. 78. 10