19 exercise of the judicial function.”[…] Said autonomous exercise shall be guaranteed by the State both in its institutional aspect, that is, with regard to the Judicial Power as a system, as well as in connection with its individual aspect, that is, with regard to the specific judge as an individual. The objective of the protection lies in avoiding that the justice system in general and its members specifically be submitted to possible improper restrictions in the exercise of their duties by bodies foreign to the Judicial Power or even by those judges that exercise duties of revision or appeal.[…] Additionally, the State has the duty to guarantee an appearance of independence of the Magistracy that inspires legitimacy and enough confidence not only to the parties, but to all citizens in a democratic society. 55 73. The Inter-American Commission and Court, in line with the constant jurisprudence of the European Court, have repeatedly held that the principle of judicial independence gives rise to a series of guarantees: appropriate appointment procedures 56 , fixed terms in office 57 , and guarantees against external pressure. 58 74. In the case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, the Inter-American Court specified the content of these guarantees and their implications for state decisions on the organization of public power. Specifically, regarding the existence of appropriate appointment procedures, the Court listed several applicable international rulings: The Basic Principles highlight as preponderant elements in the appointment of judges their integrity, ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law. Likewise, the Recommendations of the Council of Europe evoke a framework criterion of usefulness in this analysis when it states that all the decisions regarding the professional career of the judges shall be based on objective criteria, namely the judge’s personal merits, his qualifications, integrity, ability, and efficiency, all of which are the preponderant elements to be considered. (…) The Human Rights Committee has stated that if the access to the public administration is based on merits and equal opportunities, and the stability in the position can be ensured, the liberty from all political interference or pressure is guaranteed. In a similar sense, the Court points out that all appointment processes shall serve the purpose not only of appointment according to merits and qualifications of those who aspire, but to assurance of equal 55 I/A Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 67. Citing Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 171. 56 IACHR. Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12,565, Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, November 9, 2007, Para. 75; IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12,556, Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 75; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, para. 156; Eur. Court H.R., Langborger case, decision of 27 January 1989, Series A no. 155, para. 32, Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, para. 78; Principle 10 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan, Italy, from August 26 to September 6, 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 40/32 of November 29, 1985, and 40/146 of December 13, 1985, hereinafter “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.” 57 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev. 1, April 24 1997, Ch. III. IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, Doc. 59 rev., June 2, 2000, Ch. II; I/A Court H.R., Case of Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 75; and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, para. 156; Eur. Court H.R., Langborger case, decision of 27 January 1989, Series A No. 155, para. 32, Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, para. 78; and Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 198I, Series A no. 43, para. 55. Principle 12 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 58 IACHR. Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12,556. Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 69; I/A Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 70; Eur. Court H.R., Langborger case, decision of 27 January 1989, Series A no. 155, para. 32; Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, para. 78; and Piersack judgment of I October 1982, Series A no. 53, para. 27. Principles 2, 3, and 4 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.