that, in general, people have the right to be tried by a competent tribunal, in accordance with legally established procedures. 531 384. The existence and jurisdiction of a competent court or judge derives from the law, which has been defined by the Court as the “general legal norm tied to the general welfare, approved by democratically elected legislative bodies established by the Constitution, and formulated according to the procedures set forth by the constitutions of the States Parties for that purpose.” 532 Consequently, in a State governed by the rule of law, only the legislative branch is able to regulate, by means of laws, the jurisdiction of the courts. 533 385. The Court also recalls that the right to be tried by an impartial judge or court is a fundamental guarantee of due process. In other words, the person on trial must have the assurance that the judge or court presiding over his case brings to it the utmost objectivity. This Court has established that impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a particular dispute should approach the facts of the case lacking any subjective prejudice and, likewise, offering sufficient guarantees of an objective nature that inspire the necessary trust and confidence in the parties to the case and in the citizens of a democratic society. 534 The impartiality of a court implies that its members have no direct interest in, a pre-established viewpoint on, or a preference for one of the parties, and that they are not involved in the dispute. 535 This means that the judge must act without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, 536 acting only and exclusively on the basis of – and guided by – the law. 537 386. The Court also reiterates that the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 538 For the analysis of subjective impartiality, the Court must attempt to ascertain the personal interests or motivations of the judge in a particular case. 539 As to the type of evidence required to prove subjective impartiality, it is necessary to determine whether a judge has shown hostility or if he has arranged for the case to be assigned to him for personal reasons. 540 In turn, the so-called objective approach test Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 75. 532 Cf. The Expression "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 38, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 56, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 76. 533 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, supra, para. 76. 534 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 171, and Case of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPerú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 160. 535 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, Para. 146, and Case of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPerú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 160. 536 Cf. Principle 2 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 537 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, and Case of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPerú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 160. 538 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al, (“First Contentious Administrative Court) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 56, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279, para. 208. 539 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, Para. 234, and Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 163. 540 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 234, and Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 163, citing: ECHR, Case of Kyprianou v. Cyprus, No. 73797/01, Judgment of December 15, 2005, para. 119 (“As regards the type of prof required, the Court has, for example, sought to ascertain whether a judge has displayed hostility or ill will or has arranged to have a case assigned to himself for personal” reasons). See also, ECHR, Case of Bellizzi v. Malta, No. 46575/09, Judgment of June 21, 2011, para. 52 and end of November 28, 2011, para. 52, and Case of Cubber v. Belgium, No. 9186/80, Judgment of October 26, 1996, para. 25. In addition, the Court noted that the subjective impartiality of a judge may be determined, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, based on the judge's conduct during the proceedings, the content, arguments and language used in the decision, or the reasons for conducting the investigation, which indicate a lack of professional 531 122