on which this authority based herself to take her decision to be known. A.3. Political rights 65. The Commission indicated that, in its case law, the Court had indicated that, when a judge’s tenure was arbitrarily impaired, the right to have access to and remain in public office, under general conditions of equality established in Article 23(1)(c) was violated. It argued that this standard was also applicable to prosecutors, in light of the necessary application to them of the guarantee of enhanced stability. It indicated that the presumed victim was removed from office by a procedure that did not comply with the required minimum guarantees, so that it also violated his right to have access to and remain in public office under general conditions of equality. The presumed victim’s representative did not present arguments on this point. 66. The State argued that, in the case of Mr. Casa Nina, the conditions of equality in access to public office had been met, and his designation concluded owing to the needs for the service and not as a result of a disciplinary proceeding in which due process had been violated; therefore, there had been no violation of the rights recognized in Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. A.4. Right to work 67. The presumed victim argued that the Peruvian Constitution recognized that work was a right, so that workers were protected on different levels, and this included the right to job stability. He indicated that the Constitutional Court had affirmed that, in the case of an “indeterminate employment relationship, a person may only be dismissed owing to due cause, duly verified.” He added that the Prosecutor General had violated his right to work because she had removed him from the function that he had been performing without any reason. Notwithstanding the considerations regarding the preliminary objection filed by the State (supra paras. 22, 23 and 25), neither the Commission nor the State presented substantive allegations in relation to the presumed victim’s arguments. B. Considerations of the Court 68. In light of the meaning and conclusions of the arguments submitted by the parties and the Commission, it is essential, first, to clarify the recognition to prosecutors of the specific guarantees for judges, and then examine all the arguments submitted in this regard. B.1. Specific guarantees to safeguard judicial independence and their applicability to prosecutors owing to the nature of their functions 69. In order to examine this matter, the Court will base itself on three premises: (i) the State’s duty to ensure the provision of judicial services; (ii) the fundamental need that those who intervene in the provision of such services are tenured officials, with pre-established causes for removal or dismissal, and (iii) in exceptional cases in which the designation of provisional officials is required, the appointment, permanence and termination of the exercise of the function is subject to predetermined conditions (infra para. 81). Regarding the latter, in the case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, this Court concluded that the guarantee of stability and irremovability of judges, for the purpose of safeguarding their independence, was applicable to prosecutors owing to the nature of their functions. 44 The Court will refer to its considerations in that case below. Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, paras. 95 and 96. 44 19