the administration of justice, contributing to criminal proceedings, investigating crimes, and also performing other functions of public interest.” It argued that the integration of provisional prosecutors into “positions of trust” made their discretionary removal possible, and this undermined the independence that they should be ensured, because it made them vulnerable to removal based on the decisions they adopted, or due to arbitrary decisions of administrative or judicial entities. It added that what happened in the instant case, specifically the presumed victim’s appointment, without any time limit or condition, but merely citing the general “needs for the service” was incompatible with the Convention. 59. The presumed victim indicated that, in the instant case, the State had not respected the guarantee of enhanced stability, which requires it to ensure that everyone who performs judicial functions should have tenure. 60. The State argued that the post occupied by the presumed victim was terminated because it was a temporary designation, without any evidence of internal or external pressures, or a context of the intervention of external entities affecting judicial independence, or that the temporary nature of the post that Mr. Casa Nina occupied had made him vulnerable to such pressure. It indicated that the standards cited by the Commission were established after 2005; in other words, they did not exist at the time of the facts. Added to this, those standards referred to judges, and there was no case law on the situation of prosecutors, especially “provisional non-tenured prosecutors.” 61. It added that, in the instant case, no appointment had been made; rather it was a “provisional designation,” without this diminishing the independence enjoyed by “provisional non-tenured prosecutors” while their temporary appointment lasted. It indicated that, as regards the length or conditions of the designation, even though this was not explicitly set out in the corresponding resolution, “owing to the nature of the provisional designation and the circumstances that led to it (the need for the service), it could be inferred that it would unfailingly end when the reasons for the designation disappeared.” A.2. Judicial guarantees and the principle of legality 62. The Commission argued that the instant case related to proceedings to determine certain rights, in which the rights and guarantees established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c) and 9 of the Convention were applicable. It indicated that the presumed victim was entitled to his removal from office being consistent with a formal disciplinary proceeding that ensured his right of defense, the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the principle of legality, and this did not occur. It argued that neither the decision removing the presumed victim from office nor the resolution that rejected his appeal for review included a statement of reasons, which made it impossible to understand the reasons that the authority had when issuing them. 63. The presumed victim indicated that the State had violated due process and the right of defense by deciding, unilaterally and arbitrarily to remove him from office, without any reason, without citing any cause and without undertaking the respective proceeding. He added that the resolution that determined the termination of his functions did not include the necessary reasoned justification for the decision, which made it an arbitrary expression of the power of the State, in clear violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 64. The State indicated that, following the conclusions of Mr. Casa Nina’s second designation, he had had the opportunity to be heard and to exercise his right of defense because he had filed the appeal for review. It indicated that the right to due justification of decisions had not been violated because the arguments set out in the Resolution in which the Prosecutor General decided the appeal for review allowed the reasons and the legal provisions 18