52. On February 14, 2003, in Resolution No. 285-2003-MP-FN, the Prosecutor General rejected the appeal for review filed by the presumed victim indicating: Whereas: The appointment of provisional prosecutors is of a temporary nature and the arguments invoked by the appellant in his appeal for review in no way disprove the grounds for the Resolution […] of January 21, 2003, pursuant to the provisions of article 5 of Law 27362. When the said resolution was issued, two complaints against the appellant were being processed before the Decentralized District Commission for Internal Control. Therefore, based on article 64 of Legislative Decree 052, Organic Law of the Public Prosecution Service; It is decided: A[rticle 1]. To declare without merit the appeal for review filed by Julio Casa Nina against the Resolution No. 087-2003-MP-FN of the Prosecutor General of January 21, 2003, and it is hereby declared that the administrative proceedings have been exhausted.37 D.2. Application for amparo 53. Mr. Casa Nina filed an application for amparo against the Public Prosecution Service owing to the issue of Resolution No. 087-2003-MP-FN, alleging a violation of his rights to work, to due process, of defense, and to irremovability from office. In his application, among other matters, he argued that his appointment could not be terminated by a unilateral decision, without a justified reason, and that it required an administrative procedure respecting all the guarantees, that did not violate his right to defend himself.38 54. On April 19, 2005, the First Civil Court of Huamanga, Ayacucho, delivered judgment (Resolution No. 7), declaring the application for amparo unsubstantiated, considering, inter alia: That, since the applicant occupied the post of Deputy Provincial Prosecutor on a provisional basis and not as the incumbent, the decision adopted by the Prosecutor General in no way constitutes a disciplinary measure of dismissal from office as established in article 52 of the Organic Law of the Public Prosecution Service, Legislative Decree 052; therefore, the application must be rejected because no constitutional violation has been proved; in particular, considering that the same resolution that the applicant seeks to overturn specifies that the measure adopted is without prejudice to any pertinent legal actions based on the complaint and charge that are being processed; which means that these do not constitute the grounds for the resolution as the application alleges; […].39 D.3. Remedy of appeal 55. The presumed victim filed an appeal against the judgment of April 19, 2005. In response, the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho, in a judgment (Resolution No. 13) of July 11, 2005, confirmed the decision that had been appealed, considering inter alia: […] the appellant seeks to argue rights that correspond to tenured prosecutors, appointed in keeping with the provisions of articles 150 and 154 of our Constitution, because the post that he was occupying […] as an appointment of trust was that of Provisional Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of the Second Provincial Criminal Cf. Resolution of the Prosecutor General of February 14, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 4 to the Merits Report, folio 12). 37 Cf. Brief of the application for amparo of November 29, 2004 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 19 to the answering brief, folios 967 to 980). 38 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Judge of the First Civil Court of Huamanga, Ayacucho on April 19, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 7 to the Merits Report, folios 25 to 27). 39 16