- 63 191. According to this Court’s case law, the following assurances arise from judicial independence: an appropriate selection process,342 guaranteed tenure343 and the guarantee against external pressures.344 192. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Court has established that: (i) respect for judicial guarantees entails respecting judicial independence; (ii) the scope of judicial independence results in the subjective right of judges to be dismissed exclusively for the reasons permitted, either by a proceeding that complies with judicial guarantees or because their mandate has terminated, and (iii) when a judge’s tenure is arbitrarily impaired, the right to judicial independence recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention is violated, as is the right of access to public service and tenure, under general conditions of equality, established in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention.345 193. In the cases of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) and the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.), both against Ecuador, this Court clarified that judicial independence should not only be analyzed in relation to the defendant, because the judge also should have a series of guarantees to ensure judicial independence. In those cases, the Court asserted that the violation of the guarantee of judicial independence, as regards a judge’s tenure, should be analyzed in light of the treaty-based rights of judges when they have been affected by a state decision that arbitrarily interferes with the length of their mandate. Thus, the institutional guarantee of judicial independence is directly related to the right of the judge to remain in office as a result of the guarantee of tenure.346 194. The Court has pointed out that the State must guarantee the autonomous exercise of the judicial function as regards both its institutional aspect, that is, in relation to the Judiciary as a system, and also as regards its individual aspect, that is, in relation to the person of the specific judge. The Court finds it pertinent to clarify that the institutional dimension is related to aspects that are essential for the rule of law, such as the principle of the separation of powers, and the important role played by the judicial function in a democracy. Consequently, this institutional dimension goes beyond the office of the judge and has a collective impact on society as a whole. Furthermore, 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, as an expression of their guarantee of tenure.347 342 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001, para. 75, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para.188. See also: ECHR, Case of Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of June 28, 1984, para. 78; Case of Langborger v. Sweden, Judgment of January 22, 1989, para. 32, and 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 from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985. 343 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 75, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para.188. See also Principle 12 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 344 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 75, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para.188. See also, Principles 2 and 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 345 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, para. 155, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 199. 346 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 153, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 197. 347 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008, para. 55, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 198.