as a prosecutor. Law 27362 repeals the equal status between tenured and provisional judges that had been provided for in Law 26898, which was in effect at the time he was appointed Provisional Prosecutor. 15. He argued that his right to judicial protection was violated, because no effective remedy was available to exercise judicial oversight of the process of removal from his position of provincial prosecutor. 16. He contended that his right to work was violated, inasmuch as he had been removed arbitrarily from his position. 17. The petitioner continued to allege violations of his right to privacy and equal protection. The IACHR will not address said arguments in light of the fact that these violations were found inadmissible in the report on admissibility of the instant case. B. State 18. The State claimed that there was no context of a majority of prosecutors with provisional appointments, as was argued by the alleged victim and that, in any case, it is irrelevant because the timeframe of the alleged context is from 1991 to 2000, while the events of the instant case took place in 2003. 19. It contended that the alleged victim was not dismissed or subjected to disciplinary punishment, but rather was removed from office because his provisional appointment had been terminated. The State specified that provisional and tenured prosecutors do not have the same rights and are not subject to the same proceedings and, therefore, a proceeding such as a dismissal hearing, could not be demanded. It claimed that under Peruvian law, there is no proceeding for dismissal applicable to provisional deputy prosecutors. 20. The State explained that, under Peruvian law, the provisional office held by the alleged victim is a temporary position of trust, which does not give rise to any rights other than those that are inherent to it. It also noted that even though Law No. 24041 says that “public servants contracted for permanent functions cannot be removed or dismissed, except for under the grounds set forth in Legislative Decree 276,” this law does not include those who perform “political” functions or functions “of trust.” It argued that because of the foregoing provision, the alleged victim’s removal from office did not violate any right protected under the Constitution or any convention, because it was ordered by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation under the powers granted to her by the law. 21. The State further contended that the alleged victim served as a provisional deputy prosecutor, meaning, he performed support duties without permanent status for a tenured prosecutor, and noted that even though no specific termination date was specified in his appointment, the duration was contingent upon need for service. It also pointed out that the lack of a termination date in the appointment resolution was not at issue in the controversy. 22. The State argued that all due process protections are available to provisional prosecutors in the framework of cases of termination of their appointments, because on the one hand, the grounds are stated in the decisions terminating their positions and, on the other hand, they are able to exercise their right to a defense through a motion for reconsideration and the amparo proceeding to seek constitutional relief. 23. As for the law, the State contended that it did not violate the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, or freedom from ex post facto law. With respect to job security, it asserted that the system of individual petitions of the Convention does not cover the right to job security as one of the rights over which the Commission has subject matter-based competence. 3