functions.7 Likewise, it should be pointed out that judicial independence is inherent in the principle of the separation of powers established in Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Thus the separation and independence of the public powers is a fundamental element of the rule of law. 16. The Court has established that “one of the main purposes of the separation of public powers is to guarantee the independence of judges.”8 This autonomous exercise must be guaranteed by the State in both the previously mentioned institutional facet – in other words, in relation to the Judiciary as a system – and also in relation to its individual aspect – that is, in relation to the person of the specific judge. 9 The objective of protection is to prevent the judicial system in general, and its members in particular, from possibly being subject to undue constraints in the exercise of their function from organs outside the Judiciary or even from those judges who occupy functions relating to review or appeal.10 17. Closely related to the foregoing is the principle of impartiality, which “requires that the judge who intervenes in a specific dispute approach the facts of the case without any subjective prejudice, and also offering sufficient guarantees of an objective nature that allow any doubt that the accused or the community may have regarding the absence of impartiality to be eliminated.” 11 On this basis, the InterAmerican Court has indicated that “judges, contrary to other public officials, have greater guarantees owing to the necessary independence of the Judiciary.” 12 In this regard, the Court has heard cases relating to Peru, 13 Venezuela,14 and more recently, Ecuador.15 The Court has emphasized that personal impartiality “is presumed unless 7 Ernst, Carlos, “Independencia judicial y democracia”, in Jorge Malem, Jesús Orozco and Rodolfo Vázquez (comps.), La función judicial. Ética y democracia, Barcelona, Gedisa, 2003, p. 236. 8 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 73, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para.188. 9 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. para. 55. 10 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. para. 55, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, paras. 188 and 198. 11 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No.182, para. 43, para. 56, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 182. 12 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67. 13 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71. 14 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197; and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227. 15 Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266; and Case of the 5