Prosecutors should be autonomous in their decision-making and should perform their duties free from external pressure or interference, having regard to the principles of separation of powers and accountability.33 49. Based on the foregoing considerations, the IACHR finds that the standards cited in the previous section are applicable to prosecutors, who by the very nature of the function they perform, must enjoy reinforced stability in their office as a guarantee of independence in their job, and they must only be replaced for committing serious misdeeds or because their time period or a condition set forth in their appointment has lapsed or has been fulfilled, similar to how it works with judges. As was mentioned in the previous section, this is applicable to operators appointed on a provisional basis, inasmuch as they perform the same function as tenured persons and it is said function that is the subject of protection under the principle of judicial independence. 3. Analysis of the instant case 3.1 Regarding the right to a hearing, the right to a defense and freedom from ex post facto law 50. In applying the foregoing considerations, the Commission finds that the instant case involved a process of determination of rights, wherein the due process guarantees established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, as a minimum, are applicable, including the right to a hearing and the duty to state grounds. Additionally, based on the reasons set forth below, the Commission also finds that the case should be analyzed in light of the applicable guarantees of Article 8.2 and 9 of the Convention. 51. As was noted in the findings of fact section, the IACHR recalls that the alleged victim was appointed in 1998 as a Provisional Provincial Deputy Prosecutor of the Joint Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of La Mar, Ayacucho, an office he held for five consecutive years. Likewise, on April 8, 2002, he was appointed “for need of service” as a Provisional Provincial Deputy Prosecutor of the Judicial District of Ayacucho. On January 21, 2003 the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation terminated his appointment, on the grounds that “the appointment of prosecutors on provisional status is of a temporary nature, subject to needs of service.” 52. The Commission notes that the appointment of the alleged victim did not have any time limit or conditionality to it but only a justification for the appointment, namely, need of service, which was also mentioned when he was removed from office. 53. The State contended that the alleged victim served in a temporary position of trust, which does not give rise to rights other than those that are inherent to it, and that provisional prosecutors and tenured ones do not have the same rights nor do the same proceedings apply to them and, therefore, the application of proceedings such as dismissal hearings could not be demanded. Additionally, it was noted that Peruvian law does not provide for a dismissal proceeding applicable to provisional deputy prosecutors. 54. The Commission notes that making provisional prosecutors equal to “positions of trust,” as was the case with the alleged victim, makes their discretionary removal possible, which undermines the independence that must be ensured for them, inasmuch as it renders them vulnerable to being removed based on the decisions they adopt or based on arbitrary decisions of administrative or judicial entities. 55. The IACHR reiterates, taking into consideration the points of the previous section regarding the nature of the function performed by them, that prosecutors must have the guarantees of reinforced stability and should only be removed from their offices on serious disciplinary grounds or 33 Consultative Council of European Prosecutors, Opinion No. 9 (2014), Rome Charter, items IV and V. 10