Council of Europe on the independence, efficiency and role of judges, as well as on the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa.68 V. DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: INSTITUTIONAL AND PERSONAL 52. Different concepts of judicial independence have been developed by both legal doctrine and the case law of the Inter-American Court and, in this case, it is important to stress its institutional and personal aspects. 53. According to Linares, “analytically, we are able to distinguish two dimensions of judicial independence: a negative one and a positive one. The former consists in the ability to avoid different sources of coercion and loyalty, while the latter consists in the application of law – and all its sources – to decide a specific case.”69 54. Meanwhile, Chaires distinguishes between objective-institutional and subjectivefunctional independence.70 The former is identified with the absence of external pressures on this power;71 the latter to the mechanisms to ensure that the decisions of the judge abide by the law to the greatest extent possible.72 55. Judicial independence has also been conceived based on its distinction as a value or guarantee. With regard to judicial independence as a value, its significance coincides with what is called “functional independence” (also known as “substantive” or “decisional” independence). This notion of judicial independence gives rise to the basic rule of the legal system according to which the judge, in exercise of the jurisdictional function, must be subject only to legality; that is, the system of sources of law in force. In addition, judicial independence, as a guarantee, is a series of legal mechanisms designed to safeguard and to achieve the said value, which is protected by other principles such as the abovementioned separation of powers, the ordinary judge, impartiality, exclusivity, etc. 73 56. Several different elements can also be distinguished within the concept of judicial independence as a guarantee. The first of these is the so-called “personal independence,” which is the one that protects each judge individually and which consists in the series of characteristics of his constitutional status that protects him from eventual pressure from the State organs of a political nature – Parliament and the Executive Branch. In addition, more recently, the “collective” and “internal” elements of judicial independence as a guarantee have been identified. Collective judicial independence tends to protect the judiciary as a whole vis-à-vis the other powers of the State, while individual judicial independence protects the judge considered personally vis-à-vis the rest of the judicial structure.74 68 Paras. 188 to 199 of the Judgment. 69 Linares, Sebastián, op. cit., p. 116. 70 Chaires Zaragoza, Jorge, op. cit., p. 531. 71 Ibidem, p. 534. 72 Ibidem, p. 536. 73 Cf. Díez Picazo, op. cit., pp. 20 and 21. 74 Cf. Díez Picazo, op. cit., p. 21. 13