30 its institutional aspect, that is, with regard to the Judicial Power as a system, as well as in connection with its individual aspect, that is, with regard to the specific judge as an individual. The objective of the protection lies in avoiding that the justice system in general and its members specifically be submitted to possible improper restrictions in the exercise of their duties by bodies foreign to the Judicial Power or even by those judges that exercise duties of revision or appeal. 105 On the other hand, impartiality demands that the judge acting in a specific dispute approach the facts of the case subjectively free of all prejudice and also offer sufficient objective guarantees to exclude any doubt the parties or the community might entertain as to his or her lack of impartiality. 106 The European Court of Human Rights has explained that personal or subjective impartiality is to be presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary. 107 Thus, the objective test entails determining whether the judge in question provided convincing elements to eliminate legitimate or grounded fears regarding his or her impartiality. 108 That is so since the judge must appear as to act without being subject to any influence, inducement, pressure, threat, or interference, be it direct or indirect, 109 and only and exclusively in accordance with – and on the basis of – the law. 110 117. Regarding the independence of the National Congress in resolving to terminate the justices of the Supreme Court, the Commission notes first of all that the attribution of certain judicial, administrative, or disciplinary powers is not per se incompatible with the American Convention. 118. However, those powers, and the applicable procedures, must be clearly established in law. For example, it is common for constitutions to set special regulations to ensure compliance with the required independence and impartiality of the legislature when it is required to judge certain officials. That was not the case in the instant matter, and so it may be inferred that the National Congress did not act with the necessary guarantees of independence in terminating the victims. 119. In addition to this, and with reference to the guarantee of impartiality, the Commission believes that the case at hand involves a series of elements that give rise to reasonable doubt regarding the impartiality of the National Congress in terminating the functions of the Supreme Court justices. According to Congress’s interpretation, their supposed term in office had expired in January 2003. In spite of that, it was not until December 8, 2004, following the President of the Republic’s call for a special session, that Congress resolved to terminate the victims, arguing that they had been acting under an expired mandate for almost two years. That 104 I/A Court H. R., 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; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71. para. 73. 105 I/A Court H. R., 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. 106 I/A Court H. R., 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. Citing: ECHR, Pullar v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of June 10, 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, § 30; and Fey v. Austria, Judgment of February 24, 1993, Series A No. 255-A, p. 8, § 28. 107 I/A Court H. R., 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. Citing: ECHR, Daktaras v. Lithuania, No. 42095/98 (Sect. 3) (bil.), ECHR, 2000-X – (10.10.00), § 30. 108 I/A Court H. R., 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. Citing: ECHR, Piersack v. Belgium, Judgment of October 1, 1982, Series A No. 53; and De Cubber v. Belgium, Judgment of October 26, 1984, Series A No. 86. 109 110 No. 2 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. I/A Court H. R., 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.