rulings regarding which it “maintain[ed] that these violated the Constitution or the law, or [that the justices indicted] had exceeded their authority.”125 114. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the impeachment and subsequent dismissal of the presumed victims were based on charges related to judicial decisions that the National Congress, through the two Chambers, did not have the authority to review. Essentially, the mention of an “evaluation” or a “referral” aimed at determining whether, in the opinion of the deputies and the senators, these decisions had been issued in keeping with the law and the Constitution constituted a review of their content. Therefore, the Legislature had assumed the authority to question the legal criteria and the legal interpretation made in the votes and opinions expressed by the judicial authorities when issuing those decision, all of which is prohibited, in congruence with the considerations in this judgment (supra paras. 107 and 108). The foregoing does not preclude members of other branches of the State, based on the nature of their political task, issuing criticism or opinions on judicial decisions, a matter that, to the extent that it is not a hidden mechanism of external pressure and does not determine the removal of judicial authorities, does not involve an attack on the latter’s inherent independence. 115. Ultimately, the content of those judicial decisions was the determinant factor when drawing up the articles of impeachment and, subsequently, when deciding to dismiss the presumed victims. Moreover, in addition to entailing failure to respect the express prohibition established in article 255 of the Paraguayan Constitution, it represented a serious infringement of judicial independence because it failed to uphold the guarantees of irremovability and protection against external pressures which safeguard the function of judges and that it is the State’s duty to defend (supra para. 87). 116. Therefore, the actions of the Legislature arbitrarily violated the tenure of Justices Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea, thereby violating judicial independence and, as indicated in this judgment and in the Court’s consistent case law, it also prejudiced the democratic order.126 117. Consequently, the Court considers that the impeachment proceedings and the subsequent dismissal of the presumed victims based on decisions issued in exercise of their judicial functions, without proving that these were arbitrary or irrational, entailed a violation of the judicial independence established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. B.3.2. Judicial guarantees in relation to judicial independence B.3.2.1. The right to an impartial authority 118. This Court has considered that the guarantee of impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a particular dispute must approach the facts of the case free of any subjective prejudice and also offer sufficient guarantees of an objective nature to exclude any doubts that the justiciable or the community may entertain as to his or her lack of impartiality.127 Thus, this guarantee means that the members of the court, or of the authority in charge of the proceedings, should not have a direct interest, preconceived position, or preference for Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of November 26, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.3. to the answering brief, folio 10168). 126 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 155, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 192 and 201. 127 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 44, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 118. 125 31