Political Rights (the counterpart of Article 8 202 of the American Convention), in conjunction with the right to have access under general conditions of equality to public office in the country, as provided for under Article 25(c) 203 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the counterpart of Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention). 204 153. The foregoing serves to clarify some aspects of the Court’s jurisprudence. Indeed, in the case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, the Court concluded that the right to be heard by an independent tribunal, enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention, only implied that a citizen has a right to be judged by an independent judge. 205 However, it is important to point out that judicial independence should not only be analyzed in relation to justiciable matters, given that the judge must have a series of guarantees that allow for judicial independence. The Court considers it pertinent to specify that the violation of the guarantee of judicial independence, as it relates to a judge’s tenure and stability in his position, must be examined in light of the conventional rights of a judge who is affected by a State decision that arbitrarily affects the term of his appointment. In that sense, the institutional guarantee of judicial independence is directly related to a judge’s right to remain in his post, as a consequence of the guarantee of tenure in office. 154. Finally, the Court has emphasized that the State must guarantee the independent exercise of the judiciary, both in its institutional aspect, that is, in terms of the judicial branch as a system, and in its individual aspect, that is, in relation to a particular individual judge. 206 The Court deems it pertinent to point out that the objective dimension is related to essential aspects for the Rule of Law, such as the principle of separation of powers, and the important role played by the judiciary in a democracy. Consequently, this objective dimension transcends the figure of the judge and collectively affects society as a whole. Likewise, there is a direct connection between the objective dimension of judicial independence and the right of judges to have access to and remain in public service, under general conditions of equality, as an expression of their guaranteed tenure. 155. Bearing in mind the aforementioned standards, the Court considers that: i) respect for judicial guarantees implies respect for judicial independence; ii) the scope of judicial independence translates into a judge’s subjective right to be dismissed from his position exclusively for the reasons permitted, either by means of a process that complies with judicial guarantees or because the term or period of his mandate has expired, and iii) when a judge’s tenure is affected in an arbitrary manner, the right to judicial independence 202 Article 8(1) of the American Convention (Right of a Fair Trial) establishes that: 1. 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. 203 Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2, and without unreasonable restrictions,: […] c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.” 204 The Human Rights Committee concluded that “the dismissal procedure […] did not respect the requirements of basic procedural fairness and failed to ensure that the author benefited from the necessary guarantees to which he was entitled in his capacity as a judge, thus constituting an attack on the independence of the judiciary. For this reason the Committee concludes that the author's rights under Article 25 (c) in conjunction with Article 14, paragraph 1, have been violated” Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1376/2005, Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005, para. 7.2.). 205 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 148. 206 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, para. 55, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 67. 47