39 those areas and, therefore, in this type of matter, the individual also has the overall right to the due process applicable in criminal matters46. 71. Although the jurisdictional function belongs, in particular, to the Judiciary under the separation of powers that exists in the rule of law, other public organs or authorities may exercise functions of the same type47. In other words, when the Convention refers to the right of everyone to be heard by a competent judge or court to “determine his rights”, this expression refers to any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, which, through its decisions determines individual rights and obligations. For that reason, this Court considers that any State organ that exercises functions of a materially jurisdictional nature has the obligation to adopt decisions that are in consonance with the guarantees of due legal process in the terms of Article 8 of the American Convention. 72. With regard to the independence that constitutional justices should enjoy, it is enough to emphasize that both Article 201 of Peru’s current Constitution and Article 1 of the statute of the Constitutional Court establish that the latter, as the supervisory organ of the Constitution, shall be autonomous and independent. 73. This Court considers that one of the principal purposes of the separation of public powers is to guarantee the independence of judges and, to this end, the different political systems have conceived strict procedures for both their appointment and removal. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary48, establish that: The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the laws of the country. It is the duty of all governmental or other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary49. 74. As for the possibility of removing judges, these Principles stipulate: A charge or complaint against a judge in his/her judicial or professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly, in accordance with the national law. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stages shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge50. In other words, the authority in charge of the procedure to remove a judge must behave impartially in the procedure established to this end and allow the latter to exercise the right of defense. 75. This Court considers that, under the rule of law, the independence of all judges must be guaranteed and, in particular, that of constitutional judges, owing to the nature of the matters submitted to their consideration. As the European Court has indicated, the independence of any judge presumes that there is an appropriate 46 Cf. Paniagua Morales et al. case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 149. 47 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, para. 76; and Eur. Court H.R., case of X v. the United Kingdom of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, para. 53. 48 Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan from August 26 to September 6, 1985, and confirmed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985. 49 Principle 1, Idem. 50 Principle 17, Idem.