8. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “Inter-American Court”) has emphasized the democratic roots of judicial independence in several judgments and advisory opinions, and has also used the Inter-American Democratic Charter to explain the importance of judicial independence in the region’s constitutional systems. In this regard I believe it is important to mention that the separation of powers is closely associated not only with the consolidation of the democratic system, but also with the desire to preserve individual freedoms and human rights, avoid the concentration of power which can turn into tyranny and oppression, and allow for the effective and efficient fulfillment of the purposes assigned to each branch of government. However, the separation of powers not only implies a specialization of the state’s roles, according to how these have been assigned; it also implies the existence of a system of “checks and balances”, through which reciprocal control and oversight is exercised by each branch of government. Thus, the separation of powers implies the exercise of limited power, subject to regulation, and organized in different bodies which are responsible for different functions, with the essential objective of guaranteeing the freedom of individuals before the State, within a framework of participatory and pluralist democracy. 10 9. In the very important case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the Inter-American Court considered that one of the main purposes of the separation of powers is precisely to guarantee the independence of judges. It determined that, for those purposes, different political systems have developed strict procedures, both for the appointment and the removal of judges. In this regard, it referred to the “United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary,” 11 which establish that: The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary. 12 10. Regarding the possibility of removing judges, it emphasized that the same “Principles” establish that: A charge or complaint made against a judge in his judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge. 13 11. Thus, in that landmark ruling, the Inter-American Court emphasized that the authority in charge of the process to remove a judge must act impartially in the procedure established for this purpose and allow the latter to exercise the right of defense. The Court also stressed that, under the rule of law, the independence of all judges must be guaranteed and, “in particular”, that of constitutional judges, given the nature of the matters submitted to their consideration. Referring to the European Court, it specified that the independence of any judge presumes that there is an appropriate appointment process, and fixed term in the position and a guarantee against external pressures. 14 10 Regarding these concepts, see Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment C-141 of February 26, 2010. 11 Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan in August 26 - September 6, 1985, and ratified by the General Assembly in Resolutions 40/32 of November 29, 1985 and 40/146 of December 13, 1985. 12 Principle 1, Idem. 13 Principle 17, Idem. 14 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 73-75. 3