because it did not analyze whether the inexcusable judicial error constituted a disciplinary offense.51 36. Regarding the victims’ request for evidence in order to clarify a specific aspect of the case, the ICourtHR decided that the disciplinary organ should have provided at least some response, accepting or refusing to produce this evidence, or even ordering that the parties themselves provide it.52 37. In the case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, the ICourtHR examined the arbitrary removal of a judge from the provisional position she occupied on February 6, 2002. On October 13, 2004, the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decreed the annulment of the decision to dismiss her, considering that it was not in keeping with the law, but did not order the reinstatement of the presumed victim, or the payment of the salary and social benefits that she had ceased to receive. 38. In that case, the Inter-American Court indicated that judges, contrary to other public officials, have increased guarantees, owing to the necessary independence of the Judiciary. It reiterated the importance that this has for the separation of powers, and also repeated the State’s obligation to ensure its institutional aspect; that is, in relation to the Judiciary as a system, as well as in relation to its individual aspect; in other words, in relation to the person of the specific judge.53 39. It also insisted on the guarantees that result from judicial independence: an adequate appointment procedure, tenure, and a guarantee against external pressures. 54 It recalled that the authority in charge of the removal procedure must act independently and impartially during the proceeding established to this end, and permit the right of defense. 55 Tenure is a guarantee of judicial independence; and is itself composed of the following guarantees: permanence in office, an adequate promotion procedure, and no unjustified dismissal, or removal at will.56 In addition, tenure should ensure the reinstatement in office of any judge who may be arbitrarily deprived of this.57 This does not mean that provisional judges have an unlimited permanence in their functions, but they should be guaranteed a certain term in office.58 In other words, they should have the certainty of permanence for a set time, which protects them from pressure from different sectors.59 40. In the same way, the ICourtHR argued that Article 8(1) recognizes that “[e]very person has a right to a hearing […] by an independent […] judge or court.” The terms in which this article is drafted indicate that the subject of the right is the defendant, the person situated in front of the judge who will decided the case that has been submitted to him. Two obligations arise from this right: the first of the judge, and the second of the 51 Ibidem, paras. 86 and 91. 52 Ibidem, para. 94. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 67. 53 54 Ibidem, para. 70. 55 Ibidem, para. 78. 56 Ibidem, para. 79. 57 Ibidem, para. 81. 58 Ibidem, paras. 115 and 116. 59 Ibidem, para. 117. 10