of the “basic pillars of the guarantees of due process,”51 so that when a judge’s tenure in office is disrupted arbitrarily, the right to judicial independence established in Article 8(1) of the Convention is violated.52 62. The Court has stated that one of the principal purposes of the separation of public powers is indeed to guarantee the independence of judicial authorities.53 It has also stressed that the autonomous exercise of judicial work must be guaranteed by the State both in its institutional aspect, that is, regarding the judiciary as a system, and its individual aspect, that is to say, concerning the person of the specific judge. The purpose of such protection lies in preventing the judicial system in general, and its members in particular, from finding themselves subjected to possible undue limitations in the exercise of their functions by bodies alien to the judiciary or even by persons holding review or appellate positions.54 63. 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.55 The Court has therefore held that judicial independence produces the following guarantees for the office of judicial authorities: (i) an appropriate appointment process, (ii) stability and irremovability in office, and (iii) protection from external pressures.56 64. The Court would also address the implications of the guarantee of job stability and irremovability for these authorities, as follows: (i) removal from office may be effected exclusively on allowable grounds, whether through a process that offers judicial guarantees, or because the term of office has ended; (ii) judges may be dismissed only for serious disciplinary breaches or incompetence, and (iii) all actions against judges must be settled pursuant to established standards of judicial conduct and by means of 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; Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, paras. 71 and 72; and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 85. 51 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 68, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 85. See also, 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. 52 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 155, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 85. 53 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 73, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, para. 86. 54 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 55, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, para. 86. 55 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 154, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 87. 56 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 75; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 70, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 87. 20