20 independence of judges. 63 Although the principle of judicial independence is regulated by the American Convention as a right enjoyed by persons facing prosecution or appearing before the courts to resolve their disputes, the duty of respecting and ensuring that right has implications that are directly related to the procedures whereby judges are appointed and removed – issues regarding which consolidated international standards exist, as will be indicated below. 78. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has ruled that: Judges, unlike other public officials, have reinforced guarantees due to the necessary independence of the Judicial Power, which the Court has understood as “essential for the exercise of the judicial function.” 64 Said autonomous exercise shall be guaranteed by the State both in its institutional aspect, that is, with regard to the Judicial Power as a system, as well as in connection with its individual aspect, that is, with regard to the specific judge as an individual. The objective of the protection lies in avoiding that the justice system in general and its members specifically be submitted to possible improper restrictions in the exercise of their duties by bodies foreign to the Judicial Power or even by those judges that exercise duties of revision or appeal. 65 Additionally, the State has the duty to guarantee an appearance of independence of the Magistracy that inspires legitimacy and enough confidence not only to the parties, but to all citizens in a democratic society. 66 79. The Inter-American Commission and Court, in line with the constant jurisprudence of the European Court, have repeatedly held that the principle of judicial independence gives rise to a series of guarantees: appropriate appointment procedures, 67 fixed terms in office, 68 and guarantees against external pressure. 69 63 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 67. Citing: c.f. 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 Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 55. 64 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 67. Citing: c.f. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 171; and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, para. 145. 65 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 67. Citing: Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 55. 66 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 67. Citing: c.f. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 171. 67 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.565, Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, November 9, 2007, para. 75; IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.556, Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 69; I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 70. Citing: c.f. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 75; and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, para. 156; ECHR, Langborger Case, Decision of January 27, 1989, Series A No. 155, para. 32; and ECHR, Campbell and Fell, Judgment of June 28, 1984, Series A No. 80, para. 78; Principle 10 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan, Italy, August 26 to September 6, 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in resolutions 40/32 of November 29, 1985, and 40/146 of December 13, 1985; hereinafter “the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.” 68 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.565, Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, November 9, 2007, para. 75; IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.556, Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 69; I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 70; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 75; and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, para. 156; ECHR, Langborger Case, Decision of January 27, 1989, Series A No. 155, para. 32; ECHR, Campbell and Fell, Judgment of June 28, 1984, Series A No. 80, para. 78; and ECHR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, Judgment of June 23, 1981, Series A No. 43, para. 55. No. 12 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 69 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.565, Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, November 9, 2007, para. 75; IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.556, Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 69; I/A Court H.