charge of the investigation must enjoy de jure and de facto independence, which requires "not only hierarchical or institutional independence, but also actual independence."63 58. This Court has emphasized that prosecutors perform the functions of administrators of justice and, as such, they must enjoy job security guarantees, among others, as an elementary condition of their independence for the due fulfillment of their procedural functions. Therefore, they are protected by the guarantees of a proper appointment, to be irremovable from their duties and to be protected against external pressures. Otherwise, this would jeopardize the independence and objectivity that are required in their function as principles aimed at ensuring that the investigations carried out and the claims made before the jurisdictional bodies are directed exclusively to the achievement of justice in the specific case, in coherence with the scope of Article 8 of the Convention.64 In this regard, it should be added that the Court has specified that the failure to guarantee the irremovability of prosecutors, which makes them vulnerable to retaliations for their decisions, would result in a violation of the independence guaranteed, precisely, by Article 8(1) of the Convention.65 In this regard, this Court refers to the judgments in the cases of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia and Casa of Nina v. Peru in which it established that the independence recognized to prosecutors is a guarantee that they will not be subject to political pressure or undue interference in their actions, and they will not suffer reprisals for decisions they have objectively made, and this specifically requires the guarantee of stability and irremovability.66 The Constitution of Paraguay itself recognizes, in Article 270, that prosecutors enjoy the same guarantees, incompatibilities, and immunities as those determined for members of the Judiciary. 59. By virtue of the foregoing considerations, this Court reiterates that the guarantee of stability and irremovability in office, for prosecutors, implies, in turn, (i) that removal from office must be based exclusively on permissible causes, either by means of a process that complies with judicial guarantees or because they have completed their term of office; (ii) that prosecutors may only be dismissed for grave disciplinary offenses or incapacity; and (iii) that all proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct and to fair procedures that guarantee objectivity and impartiality according to the constitution or law.67 B.2. The right to a competent and independent judge 60. The process that culminated in the removal of Mr. Nissen Pessolani was conducted by the Jury for the Impeachment of Magistrates, pursuant to Articles 253 and 270 of the Constitution of Paraguay. Said Jury has a mixed nature since, in accordance with the provisions of Article 253 of the Constitution, it is composed of two ministers of the Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 95; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 70. 63 64 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, paras. 88 and 94, and Case of Cuyo Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 128. 65 Cf. Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series C No. 327, paras. 110 and 119, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al v. Peru, supra, para. 128. 66 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 96, and Case of Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 72. See also, Case of Cuya Lavy et al v. Peru, supra, para. 128. 67 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 77, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 129. 19