110. Based on the above, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to work, recognized in Article 26 of the Convention. B.3.6. Alleged violation of the protection of honor and dignity and to equality before the law 111. Regarding the alleged violation of the protection of honor and dignity, despite the power of the presumed victim to invoke rights other than those indicated by the Commission, the Court notes that he did not provide specific arguments in this regard, but merely mentioned the connectivity of such rights “with those invoked in this case,” and this does not reveal the grounds for his allegation. Therefore, the Court has no basis on which to conduct the analysis sought, because it is unable to appreciate what had given rise to this violation. 112. With regard to equality before the law, notwithstanding the lack of grounds for the analysis, it should be pointed out that the application of the legal norms that determined the power of the administrative authority to terminate the presumed victim’s appointment has already been examined (supra para. 101). In any case, the Court stresses that, in principle, those norms do not constitute a discriminatory treatment towards provisional prosecutors in relation to career prosecutors because, as indicated, the independence that should be guaranteed to both professional categories does not imply that they are equivalent (supra para. 82). B.3.7. General conclusion 113. Finally, in view of the fact that it failed to respect the guarantees required to safeguard independence in the exercise of his functions and his job stability as a provisional prosecutor, the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1), 23(1)(c) and 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Julio Casa Nina. VIII.2 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS111 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 114. The Commission argued that the presumed victim had availed himself of both administrative and constitutional remedies. However, none of the remedies filed were effective to contest the decision terminating his appointment and to review the violations of due process and the principle of legality. Mr. Casa Nina’s representative did not submit arguments in this regard. 115. The State indicated that the content of the resolution deciding the appeal for review filed by the presumed victim revealed that, at the administrative level, the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection had not been infringed. It added that the Commission had not specified which actions were contrary to the obligation of judicial protection in the case of the application for amparo filed by Mr. Casa Nina. Sufficient arguments were presented in the different instances to determine that the decision to terminate the designation was not due to a disciplinary sanction. Even though the final result of the amparo proceeding was unfavorable to the presumed victim’s claims, this could not signify the violation of the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25 of the Convention. 111 Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 32