appoints the judges results in their functional and administrative dependence on the Executive, which entails a lack of independence and impartiality from an institutional perspective.138 134. The Court has also pointed out that impartiality requires that the judge acting in a specific dispute approaches the facts of the case subjectively free of all prejudice, and also offers sufficient objective guarantees to exclude any doubt the parties or the community might entertain as to a lack of impartiality.139 135. In the instant case, at the time the facts investigated occurred, the presumed victims were members of the National Police on active duty (supra para. 42), and therefore an investigation was opened in the special jurisdiction: the police criminal jurisdiction. Thus, internally, on November 11, 2003, the NPCJ ordered a partial stay of proceedings in the case against Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, and then ordered the dismissal of the case against him. Subsequently, on January 10, 2005, the NPCJ acquitted Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz and Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and convicted Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor and Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez as perpetrators of the offense defined in paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 10 of article 222 of the Criminal Code of the National Civil Police, and Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino as accomplice; they therefore filed an appeal against the judgment. Lastly, on September 19, 2005, the National Police Court of Justice delivered a judgment exonerating Messrs. Coloma Gaibor, Vinueza Pánchez and Villarroel Merino (supra para. 65). 136. The Court notes that both the investigation and the prosecution of the presumed victims were conducted by the National Police Court of Justice, which was also responsible for hearing and deciding the appeals. Also, pursuant to article 68 of the Organic Law of the National Police,140 the NPCJ depended administratively on the Ministry of the Interior and, under article 69 of the Organic Law of the National Police, the President of the Republic was responsible for appointing the judges of the NPCJ. As has been proved, on April 29, 2003, the President of the Republic at the time issued Executive Decree No. 357 in which he appointed the new judges of the NPCJ who heard the case in first instance; they included General Byron Pinto Muñoz (supra para. 48). Subsequently, on June 10, 2005, the President of the Republic at the time issued Executive Decree No. 227 appointing new members of the NPCJ because the mandate of the previous members had concluded, and the new members heard the appeal against the conviction (supra paras. 64 and 65). Moreover, the members of the NPCJ were not required to have had any legal training in order to occupy the position of judge, and they only had a two-year mandate with the possibility of re-election.141 137. The Court has had occasion to analyze the compatibility of the police criminal jurisdiction with the American Convention taking into account the specificity of the legal nature of the Police. It has indicated that the standards for guarantees and due process established in the American Convention are also enforceable in the police criminal jurisdiction; therefore, it must provide Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, supra, para. 155, and Case of Valencia Hinojosa v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series No. 327, para. 97. 138 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. Series C No. 182, para. 56, and Case of Valencia Hinojosa v. Ecuador, supra, para. 93. 139 Article 68 established that “the National Police Court of Justice […] [d]epends administratively on the Ministry of the Interior; its functions are determined in the Organic Law of the Judicial Function of the Judicial Police.” Organic Law of the National Police. Official Record No. 368 of July 24, 1998 (evidence file, fs. 4309 to 4330). 140 Article 69 stipulated that “the [NPCJ] shall be composed of five judges, three of whom shall be general officers in reserve, of whom at least one must be a doctor of jurisprudence, and two doctors of jurisprudence who have worked either as a lawyer with great probity or, as a member of the judicial function, or as a university lecturer for at least fifteen years; they shall be appointed by the President of the Republic, remain in office for two years and may be re-elected.” Organic Law of the National Police, published in Official Record No. 368 of July 24, 1998, supra. 141 35