State. The judge has the obligation to be independent; an obligation that he meets when he judges only in accordance with – and based on – the law. Meanwhile, the State has the obligation to respect and ensure, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Convention, the right to a hearing by an independent judge. The obligation of respect consists in the negative obligation of the public authorities to abstain from interfering unduly in the Judiciary or with its members; in other words, in relation to the specific judge. The obligation of guarantee consists in preventing the said interferences and investigating and punishing those who commit them. In addition, the obligation of prevention consists in the adoption, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention, of an appropriate legal framework that ensures an adequate appointment procedure, the tenure of judges, and the other requirements. 41. Now, the said State obligations give rise, in turn, to rights for the judges and for all other citizens. For example, the guarantee of an adequate appointment procedure for judges necessarily entails the right of the citizen to have access to public office in equal conditions; the guarantee of not being subject to removal at will signifies that, in the case of judges, the disciplinary and punishment procedures must necessarily respect the guarantees of due process, and those subject to such procedures must be provided, among other matters, with an effective remedy; the guarantee of stability should translate into an appropriate employment regime for judges, in which transfers, promotions, and other conditions are sufficiently controlled and respected. 42. Lastly, in the case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, the ICourtHR examined the arbitrary dismissal of the provisional criminal judge of first instance from the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, without the minimum guarantees of due process and without adequate grounds, without the possibility of being heard, and of exercising her right of defense, and without having been provided with an effective judicial remedy to contest the violations of her rights, all as a result of the absence of guarantees in the Judiciary’s transition process. 43. The Inter-American Court reiterated that one of the main purposes of the separation of public powers is the guarantee of the independence of judges. The objective of protection stems from the need to avoid the judicial system, in general, and its members, in particular, being subjected to possible undue constraints in the exercise of their functions by organs outside the Judiciary, or even by those judges who exercise functions of review and appeal.60 44. The Court insisted once again on the guarantees that result from judicial independence: an adequate appointment procedure, tenure, and the guarantee against external pressure, and stated that the authority in charge of the procedure to remove a judge must act with independence and impartiality in the proceeding established to that end, and permit the exercise of the right of defenses. This is because the removal of judges at will leads to the objective doubt of the observer about their real possibility of deciding specific disputes without fear of reprisal.61 45. The ICourtHR reiterated that, even though titular and provisional judges have the same guarantees, they do not provide equal protection for the two types of judge, because provisional and temporary judges are, by definition, appointed in a different way and do not have an unlimited permanence in office. Thus, provisional and temporary judges have not Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 97. 60 61 Ibidem, para. 99. 11