before an organ of the State must be guaranteed that this organ is competent, independent and impartial and that it acts in accordance with the procedure established by law for hearing and deciding the case submitted to it.” 29 24. As to the application for amparo filed against the decision on dismissal, it considered that this was not decided within a reasonable period, or by an impartial judge. 30 25. In the Case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela, the Inter-American Court considered the case of the dismissal of the provisional former judges of the First Court of Administrative Disputes, for having allegedly committed the inexcusable judicial error of granting an amparo that suspended the effects of an administrative act that had denied a request for the registration of a land sale. In this case, the Inter-American Court noted that the States are bound to ensure that provisional judges can be independent and therefore must grant them some sort of stability and permanence in office, for to be provisional is not equivalent to being discretionally removable from office. Similarly, it considered that provisional tenure should not imply any change in the safeguards instituted to guarantee the good performance of the judges and to benefit the parties to a case. 31 Indeed, the Inter-American Court considers that an adequate appointment process and a fixed term of office are some of the ways to guarantee the independence of judges. 32 26. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the authority in charge of the procedure to remove a judge must act impartially and allow the judge to exercise the right of defense 33, in order to be considered an independent tribunal. 34 Similarly, it recalled that all the organs that exercise functions of a substantially jurisdictional nature have the obligation to adopt just decisions based on full respect for the guarantees of due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention. 35 27. Regarding the issue of judicial independence, the Inter-American Court emphasized its importance for the separation of powers, together with the State’s obligation to guarantee its institutional aspect, in other words, in relation to the Judiciary as a system, as well as in connection with its individual aspect, that is to say, regarding the person of the specific judge. 36 At the same time, impartiality demands that the judge acting in a specific dispute approach the facts of the case subjectively, free of all prejudice, and also offer sufficient objective guarantees to exclude any doubts that might be harbored by the parties or by the community as to his or her lack of impartiality. 37 28. The Inter-American Court also argued that under international law the valid grounds for suspending or removing a judge may include, inter alia, misconduct or incompetence. However, judges cannot be removed solely on the grounds that one of their decisions has 29 Ibid. para. 77. 30 Ibid. paras. 93 and 96. 31 Case 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. 43. 32 Ibid. para. 138. 33 Ibid. para. 44. 34 Ibid. para. 137. 35 Ibid. para. 46. 36 Ibid. para. 55. 37 Ibid. para. 56. 7