193. Meanwhile, the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa include a specific prohibition to remove judges in the context of the annulment of their rulings. The Principles and Guidelines established that “[j]udicial officials shall not be: […] removed from office or subject to other disciplinary or administrative procedures by reason only that their decision has been overturned on appeal or review by a higher judicial body.”232 194. In addition, in relation to the protection granted by Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention,233 in the cases of Apitz Barbera et al., and Reverón Trujillo, this Court stipulated that Article 23(1)(c) does not establish the right to have access to public office, but rather to do so “under general conditions of equality.” This means that respect for and the guarantee of this right are complied with when “the criteria and processes for appointment, promotion, suspension, and dismissal are objective and reasonable” and when “no one is subject to discrimination” in the exercise of this right.234 In this regard, the Court has indicated that equal opportunities in access to and tenure in a position guarantee freedom from any political interference or pressure. 235 195. The Court has also indicated that the guarantee of tenure for judges is related to the right to permanence, on general terms of equality, in public office.236 Indeed, in the case of Reverón Trujillo, the Court indicated that “access, on equal terms, would constitute an insufficient guarantee if it were not accompanied by the real protection of permanence in the office to which access is obtained.”237 196. For its part, in cases of the arbitrary dismissal of judges,238 the Human Rights 232 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, adopted as part of the report of activities of the African Commission at the Second Summit and Meeting of Heads of State of the African Union held in Maputo from July 4 to 12, 2003, Principle A(4)(2). 233 The pertinent part of Article 23(1) establishes that: “Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: […] (c) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.” 234 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 206, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 138. See also, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25), CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 7, 12 July 1996, para. 23. 235 Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 135. See also, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, para. 19. 236 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 43, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 135. See also, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 814/1998, Mikhail Ivanovich Pastukhov v. Belarus, CCPR/C/78/D/814/1998, para. 7.3; Communication No. 933/2000, Adrien Mundyo Busyo, Thomas Osthudi Wongodi, René Sibu Matubuka et al. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, CCPR/C/78/D/933/2000, para. 5.2. 237 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 138, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 135. Also, the Human Rights Committee, in the case of Mikhail Ivanovich Pastukhov v. Belarus, declared that “the author's dismissal from his position as a judge of the Constitutional Court, several years before the expiry of the term for which he had been appointed, constituted an attack on the independence of the judiciary and failed to respect the author's right of access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. Consequently, there has been a violation of article 25 (c) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 14, paragraph 1, on the independence of the judiciary.” Cf. Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 814/1998, Mikhail Ivanovich Pastukhov v. Belarus, CCPR/C/78/D/814/1998, para. 7.3. 238 In the case of Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, where the Committee concluded that “a dismissal of a judge in violation of article 25 (c) of the Covenant, may amount to a violation of this guarantee, read in conjunction with article 14, paragraph 1 providing for the independence of the judiciary.” Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1376/2005, Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005, para. 7.3.” 58