9 up, it did not receive information on the manner in which such commission would conform to the requirements of independence and impartiality, despite having requested it. It further asserted that there was not a satisfactory compliance level regarding the measures adopted the guarantees that must exist in the process and their effectiveness. 24. That the Court notes that the body that the State had to set up to comply with the terms of operative paragraph four of said Judgment had to fulfill the requirements of impartiality and independence which must govern every body in charge of determining the people’s rights and obligations. To that end, the Tribunal has previously stated that said requirements are not only compulsory for judicial bodies, but that the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention also apply to the decisions of administrative bodies, which should “comply with these guarantees designed to ensure that the decision is not arbitrary”6. 25. That, upon recognizing the relationship that exists between the guarantees of independence and impartiality, this Tribunal has pointed out that each guarantee has its own juridical content, for which it is adequate to analyze whether such guarantees were fulfilled in the formation of the CEE and the proceeding conducted to reach to a final and binding decision. 26. That this Court has established that the principle of judicial independence constitutes one of the basic pillars of the guarantees of the due process, reason for which it shall be respected in all areas of the proceeding and before all the procedural instances in which decisions are made with regard to the person’s rights7. A way to guarantee that a body set up by the State complies with the guarantee of independence is the adequate appointment process of its members, so that decisions are made without any political interference or pressure8. Moreover, according to the Tribunal, the personal merits and professional qualifications of the appointed members do not ensure per se their independence, but it is necessary to take into account the peculiarity and specific nature of the duties to be fulfilled and the ones they fulfilled under the parameters of objectivity and reasonability9. 27. That even when the State was requested information regarding the appointment process of the members of the CEE, the State only forwarded their curricula vitae but it did not provide details about the process by which they were appointed. Furthermore, the Supreme Decree N° 118-2008-JUS does not specify the reasons of the appointment of these people. In light of the information provided by the parties, the Tribunal notes that no evidence has been furnished to demonstrate that the process by which five members of the CEE were appointed, have been conducted according to the parameters previously established. Based on the foregoing, the Court deems that the independence of the body so established has not been ensured. 28. That, in addition, the impartiality means that the judge or officer, who intervenes in a particular matter, must come up with the facts of the case without any type of bias, subjectively speaking, and furthermore, offering sufficient guarantees, of an objective nature, that would allow to cast any doubt that the defendant or the community may harbor 6 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 119 and Case of Escher et al. V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009; para. 208. 7 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67 and 68, and 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, para. 55. 8 Cf. mutatus mutandi, Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela, supra note 10, para 71 to 74; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela, supra note 10, para. 138. 9 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Bolivia, supra note 10, paras. 72 and 74.