independence of any judge supposes that there is an appropriate appointment procedure, an established term of the mandate, and guarantees against external pressures.22 19. At this time, the point that I wish to emphasize is that the ICourtHR has maintained that judicial independence constitutes an institutional guarantee under a democratic system that is connected to the principle of the separation of powers, which is now embodied in Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. In this case, also, it should be taken into account that it was the Constitutional Tribunal, which the victims formed part of in their capacity as judges, that was the democratic institution required to ensure the rule of law. 20. It could even be considered whether it is possible to constitute a sort of right of the defendants to the democratic conditions of public institutions, based not only on the said Article 3, but also on Article 29 of the Convention,23 which would be supported by the State’s international obligation to exercise its powers in accordance with the rule of law, the separation of powers and, evidently, the independence of the judges, as has been proposed in other cases in which the Court has decided similar issues. 24 A standard of this type would go beyond the concept of democracy in interpretive terms, as the ICourtHR has indicated, in the sense that “the just requirements of democracy must […] guide the interpretation of the Convention and, in particular, of those provisions that are significantly related to the preservation and functioning of the democratic institutions.”25 II. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONTEXT IN THIS CASE 21. In keeping with the proven facts in this case, the dismissal of the members of the three high courts of Ecuador; that is, the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Court of Justice, and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal occurred as a result of a political arrangement between the President of the Republic at the time, Lucio Gutiérrez, who it was sought to impeach for the offense of embezzlement, and the Ecuadorian Roldosista Party. Meanwhile, the leader of that party, the former President of the Republic, Abdalá Bucaram, sought the annulment of several criminal proceedings that were being processed before the Supreme Court.26 22 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 73-75. 23 “Article 29. Restrictions regarding interpretation No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: a. permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein; b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; c. precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government; or d. excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have.” 24 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. 222. 25 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 44. 26 Cf. paras. 55, 56, 211 and 219 of the Judgment. 6