that democracy continues to be weak and strong Executives Branches have been a constant source of attacks on judicial independence.31 26. In this specific case, among the proven facts, the ICourtHR considered that, at times during Ecuador’s history, “the high courts were intervened by the political authorities,” and that according to “expert witness Mónica Rodríguez, proposed by the State, `in Ecuador, the independence of the Supreme Court of Justice has been compromised and the institution exploited throughout its history.´”32 IV. JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE CASE LAW OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF JUDGES 27. In the case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the ICourtHR examined the congressional resolution of May 28, 1997, removing some of the judges of the country’s Constitutional Court for presumed irregularities in the processing of the clarification of a judgment that declared the inapplicability of Law No. 26,657. In that case, the InterAmerican Court determined that the guarantees established in both paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8 of the American Convention were applicable in civil, labor, fiscal or any other matter, as well as criminal matters, so that due process of law was required.33 28. In addition, it indicated that any authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial that, by means of its decisions, determines rights and obligations of the individual, is obliged to comply with due process.34 Likewise, it clarified that one of the main purposes of the separation of powers is the guarantee of judicial independence, and to this end, rigorous procedures of different kinds have been conceived for both the appointment and the removal of judges.35 The authority that executes this procedure must be impartial and allow the exercise of the right of defense. 36 29. The Court also stipulated that the independence of any judge supposes that there is an adequate appointment procedure, with an established term of office, and a guarantee against external pressure.37 30. Regarding impeachment, in which the sanction of dismissal is applied, 38 it established that “any person subject to a trial of any nature before an organ of the State must be guaranteed that the said organ is competent, independent and impartial, and acts 31 Horan, Jennifer E. and Meinhold, Stephen S., “Separation of powers and the Ecuadorian Supreme Court: exploring presidential-judicial conflict in a post-transition democracy”, The Social Science Journal, 2012, vol. 29, pp. 232-234. 32 Para. 41 of the Judgment. 33 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C, No. 71, para. 70. 34 Ibidem, para. 71. 35 Ibidem, para. 73. 36 Ibidem, para. 74. 37 Ibidem, para. 75. 38 Ibidem, paras. 67 and 68. 8