21 established for that purpose and allow the exercise of the right of defense. 63 As the Court has stated, the free removal of judges fosters an objective doubt in the observer regarding the effective possibility they may have to decide specific controversies without fearing retaliation. 64 79. It is worth mentioning that within the context of the Inter-American System, the institution of impeachment (juicio político) has been recognized as a legitimate mechanism of control. In the case of the Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru, the Inter-American Court stated that: Under the rule of law, the impeachment proceeding is a means of controlling senior officials of both the Executive and other State organs exercised by the Legislature. However, this control does not mean that the organ being controlled – in this case the Constitutional Court – is subordinate to the controlling organ – in this case the Legislature; but rather that the intention of the latter is that an organ that represents the people may examine and take decisions on the actions of senior officials. 65 80. In that case, the Court considered that the institution of impeachment must observe due process in order to ensure the principle of judicial independence with respect to the high ranking judges subjected to that procedure. 66 81. From the above, it is clear that the various international human rights agencies and courts agree that heightened stability in the tenure of judges, and the resultant ban on their free removal, is an essential part of the principle of judicial independence. As the Inter-American Court has said, if a State fails to abide by those guarantees, it would be failing in its obligation of upholding judicial independence. 67 Similarly, the Inter-American Commission has stated that the guarantee of stability in the positions of judges must be reinforced – a requirement that arises from the need to establish mechanisms to ensure their independence from the other branches of government. 68 The Commission highlights the Inter-American Court’s comments on prohibiting the free removal of judges: To the contrary the States could remove the judges and therefore intervene in the Judicial Power without greater costs or control. Additionally, this could generate a fear in the other judges, who observe that their colleagues are dismissed (…). Said fear could also affect judicial independence, since it would promote that the judges follow instructions or abstain from contesting both the nominating and punishing entity. 69 82. To summarize, the principle of judicial independence – together with the associated state obligations of upholding and guaranteeing it – requires that judges have appropriate appointment and promotion procedures, that they are guaranteed stability in their positions during 63 I/A Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 1999, Series C No. 197, para. 78. Citing Case of Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 74. 64 I/A Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 1999, Series C No. 197, para. 78. See also Principles 2, 3, and 4 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 65 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para, 63. 66 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para, 84. 67 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. 79. See also: Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 68 69 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.556, Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 72. 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. 81.