78. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the Honduran State, to the detriment of José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma, violated the right to duly substantiated decisions, established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof. 5. Right to judicial protection 79 and right to judicial guarantees 80 79. The IACHR calls to mind that States have a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to persons who allege having been victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies which must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)). For an effective remedy to exist, it is not enough for it to be established by law; rather, it needs to be truly appropriate for establishing whether there has been a human rights violation and for providing whatever is necessary to remedy it. 81 80. Article 8(1) of the Convention recognizes the right to be heard “by a competent…tribunal, previously established by law.” Thus, “people have the right to be tried, in general, by a competent tribunal, in accordance with legally established procedures.” The State must not create tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process “to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals.” The purpose of this is to prevent individuals from being tried by special or ad hoc tribunals. 82 81. The independence of judges must be ensured even within the judicial branch. The purpose of this protection has to do with preventing the judicial system in general, and its members in particular, from being subjected to possible undue constraints in the exercise of their function by bodies outside the judiciary or even by those judges who exercise review or appeal functions. 83 The parties have the right, derived from the American Convention, for the judges deciding their disputes to be and to appear to be independent. 84 82. The guarantee of impartiality implies that the disciplinary authority or the members of the disciplinary tribunal that hear and decide the case “have no direct interest in, a pre-established viewpoint on, or a preference for one of the parties, and that they are not involved in the controversy.” 85 When impartiality is being determined, regard must be had, from a subjective standpoint, to the personal conviction and behavior of a judge in a given case but also, from an objective perspective, to whether the proceeding offers sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in that respect. 86 The right to an impartial tribunal is the guarantee that the decision will be adopted based on the reasons that the law provides and not on other criteria that have nothing to do with the legal framework. The importance of that is particularly acute where punitive matters are concerned and even more so in punitive proceedings against judges, bearing in mind the principle of judicial independence, as described earlier. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 80 Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes: “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.” 81I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 24, 2006, Series C No. 158, par. 125; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 17, 2005, Series C No. 125, par. 62; Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 28, 2003, Series C No. 98, par. 136. 82 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 17, 2009, Series C No. 206, par. 75. 83 I/A Court H.R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No 182, par. 55, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No, 268, par. 188. 84 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, par. 114, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 1, 2011, Series C No. 227, par. 103. 85 I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, par. 146. 86 See European Court of Human Rights, Case of Thomann v. Switzerland, Judgment of June 10, 1996, § 30. 79 17