aimed at safeguarding their independence. This is also applicable to prosecutors due to the nature of the duties that they undertake, 113 as well as the guarantees to an adequate appointment process and to be protected against external pressures that protect both the work of judges and that of the prosecutors. 114 124. Regarding the role of the judges, the Court has indicated that said autonomous exercise must be guaranteed by the State both in its institutional facet, that is, in relation to the Judiciary as a system, as well as in its individual aspect, that is, in relation to the specific judge as a person. The objective of protection is to prevent the judicial system, in general, and its members, in particular, from being subjected to possible undue restrictions in the exercise of their duties by bodies outside the Judiciary, or even by those who exercise review or appeal functions. 115 125. Regarding the guarantee of tenure of judges, this Court recalls that in the Statute of the Ibero-American Judge, Article 14 states the following: Article 14. PRINCIPLE OF NON-REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. As a guarantee of their independence, judges cannot be removed from the moment in which they acquire the said status and join the judicial career in the terms established by the Constitution. Nevertheless, they can be suspended or separated from office owing to physical or mental incapacity, or negative evaluation of their professional performance in the cases established by law, or separated from office in case of criminal or disciplinary responsibility by legally established bodies, by means of procedures guaranteeing respect for due process and, in particular, the rights to a hearing, defense, contradiction and legal remedies, as appropriate.. 116 126. Additionally, it reiterates that the United Nations Basic Principles regarding the Independence of the Judiciary establish that judges may only be suspended or removed from office due to incapacity or behavior that disqualifies them from continuing to perform their duties and that any procedure for the adoption of disciplinary measures, suspension or removal from office will be resolved in accordance with the established norms of judicial behavior. 117 127. Finally, the current Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers stated that "judges may be subject to disciplinary proceedings only in the cases previously provided for in the constitution or the law and in accordance with the established procedure." 118 In addition, it pointed out that "the rule [s] should be formulated in a sufficiently precise manner to allow them to regulate their conduct and foresee the consequences that the performance of a specific action would entail” 119. 113 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, paras. 95 and 96, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 69. 114 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 88, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 72. In this regard, this Court recalls that the criteria expressed is also supported by various instruments and pronouncements in the international arena, such as the United Nations Guidelines on the role of prosecutors and the United Nations Special Rapporteurship on the independence of judges and lawyers. At European level, the Council of Europe and the joint report issued by the Consultative Council of European Judges and the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors on “Judges and prosecutors in a democratic society”, called the “Bordeaux Declaration”. The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled in this regard. In addition, the African System highlights the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Aid in Africa. Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, paras. 89 to 93. 115 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. 55, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 86. 116 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 73. 117 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 77, and Case of Urrutia Laubreauxvs. Chile, supra, para. 109. 118 It is also worth noting that, the then Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, indicated in reports submitted in 2013 and 2014 that, although judges may be subject to disciplinary proceedings for conduct that brings judicial office into disrepute or that violate judicial ethics, disciplinary offenses that refer in general terms to “threat or harm to the correct administration of justice, [...] risk undermining the independence of the judiciary.”. Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 76. 119 Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Diego García Sayán, Doc. A/75/172, July 17, 2020, para. 12 and 13. Available at: https://www.undocs.org/es/A/75/172 33