Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani himself was prosecuting the president of the JEM for alleged possession of a stolen car. Also, that the president of the JEM showed a "striking interest" in knowing details of the investigation against C.P.O. just days before his impeachment request against Prosecutor Nissen was filed. On the other hand, he alleged that the president initiated the trial against Prosecutor Nissen Pessolani via a unipersonal order, when this should have been done by the JEM plenary. He also claimed that several members of the JEM should have been recused from the case, since they had a close relationship with the then president of the Republic, who was the owner of a vehicle whose ownership was being investigated by Prosecutor Pessolani. In addition, he considered that another member of the JEM, L.C.K, also had a conflict of interest, as he was also involved in the investigation for the possession of another stolen and laundered car. 55. The State argued that, as recognized by the Commission, in the specific case, there was a competent court that acted impartially and independently. As to the JEM composition, he added that its two senators and two representatives necessarily must be lawyers and although they are appointed by the respective legislative chambers, "they exercise their duties in the JEM with total and absolute independence, not receiving any mandate from these legislative bodies, nor from their authorities and members." He added that, with respect to the composition of the JEM, the Commission argued there was only a potential risk factor, which could not be interpreted as a violation per se by the Paraguayan State. As to the impartiality of the members of the JEM, he stressed that its president, who was the object of recusal, did not sign the judgment of April 7, 2003. In his closing arguments, he stressed that the participation of the legislative body in the composition of the JEM is not decisive, since half of the JEM is made up of members appointed by the Supreme Court of Justice and by the Council of Magistrates, which also includes practicing lawyers and faculty members of Law Schools. B. Considerations of the Court 56. In order to proceed with the respective analysis, it is essential to recall the case law of this Court regarding the specific guarantees to safeguard judicial independence and their applicability to prosecutors (1). Subsequently, the arguments regarding the right to a competent and independent judge will be analyzed (2), as well as the guarantee of an impartial judge (3). B.1. Specific guarantees to safeguard judicial independence and their applicability to prosecutors due to the nature of their duties 57. This Court has already established that the guarantee of stability and irremovability of judges, aimed at safeguarding their independence, is applicable to prosecutors based on the nature of their responsibilities.61 In this regard, with respect to the specific role of prosecutors, this Court has referred on several occasions to the need for States to guarantee an independent and impartial investigation of human rights violations and, in general, in the criminal sphere.62 The Court has emphasized that the authorities in 61 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, paras. 95 and 96; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, paras. 69, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 123. 62 Cfr. inter alia, Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 108; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 70. 18