88 preventing their execution, and [in the instant case], this is how it proceeded, pursuant to the laws in force in Venezuela and in most legal systems.” A.4.2 Considerations of the Court 303. The Court recalls that one of the main purposes of the separation of public powers is the guarantee of the independence of the judges and to avoid the judicial system and its members being subjected to undue restrictions in the exercise of their functions by organs outside the Judiciary, or even by those justices who exercise functions of review and appeal.331 In addition, the guarantee of judicial independence encompasses the guarantee against external pressure,332 so that the State must refrain from unduly interfering in the Judiciary or with its members – in other words, with the specific judge – and must prevent such interferences, and investigate and punish those who commit them. 333 304. The Court reiterates that the right to a hearing by an impartial judge or court is a fundamental guarantee of due process, and it must be ensured that the judge or court, in the exercise of their functions to adjudicate, demonstrate the greatest objectivity in the proceedings.334 This Court has established that impartiality requires that the judge who intervenes in a dispute approach the facts of the case without any subjective prejudice and, also, offering sufficient guarantees of an objective nature to inspire the necessary confidence in the parties to the case, as well as in the citizens in a democratic society.335 The impartiality of the court implies that its members do not have a direct interest, a preconceived opinion, or a preference for one of the parties, and that they are not involved in the dispute. 336 305. Regarding the arguments of the Commission and the representatives concerning the alleged existence in Venezuela of a context marked by the “lack of independence and autonomy of the Judiciary vis-à-vis the political power,” the Court has already determined that it has no evidence to find that the existence of this context has been proved in the instant case (supra para. 278). The Court also considers that the specific allegations that the decision to seize the RCTV assets could be related to a lack of independence and impartiality of the SCJ have not been substantiated in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds that, in this case, the allegations concerning the presumed violation of judicial independence and impartiality have not been proved. 306. Furthermore, regarding the presumed victims’ right of defense, the Court notes that the RCTV representatives were unable to intervene directly in the judicial proceeding in which the seizure of the assets owned by RCTV was decided, because it was only notified of the proceeding as possible interested parties by decree, without being able to present arguments Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 55, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, para. 147. 331 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 75, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, para. 147. See also: ECHR, Campbell and Fell v. The United Kingdom, (No. 7819/77; 7878/77), Judgment of June 28, 1984, para. 78, and ECHR, Langborger v. Sweden (No. 11179/84), Judgment of June 22, 1989, para. 32. See also: the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of the Offenders, held in Milan from August 26 to September 6, 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in its Resolutions 40/32 of November 29, 1985, and 40/146 of December 13, 1985, Principles 2, 3 and 4. 332 333 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 146, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 186. 334 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 171, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, para. 117. 335 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 171, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, para. 168. Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 146, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, para. 117. 336