It is the duty of society in general and of the State in particular, through its institutions, to respect, protect and promote the development of the indigenous peoples, their cultures, families and communities, taking appropriate measures to achieve these objectives, and to protect indigenous lands, supervise their satisfactory exploitation and their ecological balance, and promote their expansion. [Bold added] 206. Article 1(1) of the American Convention prohibits discrimination in general, and includes categories who may not be discriminated against (supra para. 196). Taking into account the criteria described previously, this Court places on record that the ethnic origin of an individual is a category protected by the Convention. Hence, the American Convention prohibits any discriminatory norm, act or practice based on an individual’s ethnic origin. Consequently, no norm, decision or practice of domestic law, applied by either State authorities or by private individuals, may reduce or restrict in any way the rights of an individual based on his ethnic origin.221 This is equally applicable to the prohibition, under Article 24 of this instrument, of unequal treatment based on ethnic origin under domestic law or in its application. a.ii) The right to an impartial judge or court 207. Article 8 of the American Convention is entitled “Right to a Fair Trial” [“Judicial Guarantees” in the Spanish version]. The first of these guarantees is that of Article 8(1), which establishes the following: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 208. In the instant case, allegations have been submitted to the Court’s consideration concerning the supposed lack of impartiality of the judges or courts that handed down the judgments convicting the presumed victims in this case. In this regard, the Court has established that personal impartiality requires that a judge who intervenes in a specific dispute must approach the events of the proceedings without any subjective bias and, also, offering sufficient guarantees of objectivity that eliminate any doubt that the accused or the community may have concerning the absence of impartiality. The Court has emphasized that personal impartiality is presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary consisting, for example, in the demonstration that a member of a court or a judge has personal prejudices or biases against the litigants. The judge must appear to be acting without being subject to direct or indirect influence, incentive, pressure, threat or interference, but only and exclusively in accordance with – and inspired by – the law.222 209. The Court has also determined that “a violation of Article 8(1) owing to the presumed lack of judicial impartiality of the judges must be established based on specific, concrete probative elements that indicate the presence of a case in which the judges have clearly let themselves be influenced by aspects or criteria other than legal norms.”223 210. Effective measures to combat terrorism must be complementary and not contradictory to the observance of the norms for the protection of human rights.224 When adopting measures 221 The same is true with regard to the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 91. 222 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 56, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 189. 223 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para.190. 224 Cf. UN Doc. A/HRC/16/51, December 21, 2010, Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, Ten areas of best practices in countering terrorism, paras. 12 and 13. Similarly: Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, paras. 44 and 57; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 95; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 91, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 2, 2008 Series C No. 181, paras. 76 to 80. 72