39 (supra paras. 114 through 117 and 121). Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo suffered an arbitrary unequal treatment regarding the right to remain, under equal conditions, in the exercise of public service, which constitutes a violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention in connection to the obligations of respect and guarantee established in Article 1(1) of the same. * * * 142. With regard to the State’s arguments and the evidence presented by the State regarding Mrs. Reverón Trujillo’s alleged possibility to access the Judicial Power through her registration before the PET, and to the representative’s response regarding the unfeasibility of that access, the Tribunal considers that their analysis is not appropriate since, as indicated in paragraphs 81 and 127 supra, the only correct response before the victim’s arbitrary dismissal was the reinstatement to her position, without demanding for this any other additional requirement. The victim’s participation in any other program seeking to define the entitlement of the position would only have been relevant after her reinstatement as a provisional judge. VIII ARTICLE 8(1) (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)170 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 143. The representatives indicate that “in the present case, upon violating the right to an effective judicial protection of María Cristina Reverón Trujillo, her right to independence as a judge, acknowledged in Article 8 of the Convention was also consequently violated.” The Commission did not argue the violation to this article. 144. The State indicated that the representatives “distort as per their interest the sense and scope of the right to a fair trial, established in Article 8 of the American Convention, in order to attribute to themselves a right to judicial autonomy and independence. [… I]t is enough to state that [said] conventional regulation […] enshrines a guarantee for the subject submitted to a judicial process, and not an individual guarantee of protection for the judge.” 145. Taking into account the jurisprudence of this Court indicated in paragraphs 135 and 136 supra, the Court goes on to analyze the alleged violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention since it refers to the facts included in the application and it was presented in a timely manner in the brief of pleadings and motions. 146. Article 8(1) acknowledges that “[e]very person has the right to a hearing[…] by a […]independent[…] tribunal.” The terms in which this article is written indicate that the subject of the law are the parties, the person sitting before the judge that will decide the case submitted to it. Two obligations arise from this right. The first corresponding to the judge and the second to the State. The judge has the duty to be independent, duty fulfilled only when he rules pursuant with –and moved by- the Law. On its part, the State has the duty to respect and guarantee, pursuant with Article 1(1) of the Convention, the right to be tried by an independent judge. The duty of respect consists in the negative obligation of public authorities to abstain from illegally interfering in the Judicial Power or with its members, that is, with 170 Article 8(1) states, in what is relevant, that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.