selected. Provisional appoints should be exceptional, rather than the rule. 64 In addition (infra paras. 88 and 89), the decision that terminates the appointment of provisional prosecutors should be duly reasoned, to ensure the rights to due process and judicial protection. 82. The foregoing does not imply the equivalence of those appointed through a public competitive selection procedure and those appointed provisionally, because the latter are appointed for a limited period of time and subject to a resolutive condition. However, as explained in the preceding paragraph, within the framework of that appointment and until this resolutive condition or a serious disciplinary offense is verified, the provisional prosecutor should have the same guarantees as those with tenure, because their functions are identical and require the same protection against external pressures. 65 83. In conclusion, the Court considers that the removal of a provisional prosecutor from office should be the result of legally defined caused, namely: (i) the occurrence of the resolutive condition to which the designation or appointment was subject, or the conclusion of a predetermined period of time for holding and concluding a public competitive selection procedure in order to appoint or designate the permanent replacement of the provisional prosecutor, or (ii) serious disciplinary offenses or proven incompetence, in which case it is necessary to conduct a procedures that complies with the due guarantees and that ensures the objectivity and impartiality of the decision. 66 B.3. Analysis of this specific case B.3.1. Appointment of Julio Casa Nina as a provisional prosecutor 84. Julio Casa Nina was appointed Provisional Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of the Joint Provincial Prosecution Service of La Mar, Judicial District of Ayacucho, by a Resolution of June 30, 1998. Subsequently, in a Resolution of April 8, 2002, this appointment was terminated and he was appointed Provisional Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of the Judicial District of Ayacucho, in the Second Provincial Criminal Prosecution Office of Huamanga. Neither of these resolutions specified the duration of the appointment or any other resolutive condition whose occurrence would determine the conclusion of the appointment or designation. 67 85. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, in order to ensure the independence of prosecutors, provisional appointments should necessarily be exceptional (supra para. 81).68 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 97. See also: mutatis mutandis, Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C, No. 182, para. 43, and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 148. 64 65 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 98. 66 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 99. The Court takes note of the distinction that, according to the State, exists in domestic law with regard to the words “appointment” and “designation,” which was also mentioned by witness Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez. In this regard, the witness indicated that the use of the former word, in relation to the employment status of Julio Casa Nina, “in no way changes the essence of the temporary nature of the post, always linked to the ‘needs for the service.’” Cf. Statement made by Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez (evidence file, volume VI, affidavits, folio 1245). The same is true with regard to the difference between the expressions “termination of the designation” and “removal from office.” Notwithstanding the distinction that the use of each expression may have under the Peruvian legal system, it is evident that the condition of provisional prosecutor – that is “non-career provisional prosecutor” (infra footnote 69) – is linked to a condition of impermanence in which its start (appointment or designation) and end (termination of the designation or removal from office) are determined based on “the needs for the service.” For the aforementioned purposes, these expressions are used interchangeably in this judgment. 67 In the case of the Peruvian State, in 2000, the Inter-American Commission emphasized that “more than 80% of the prosecutors in Peru [were] "provisional” (1,067 prosecutors, of a national total of 1,259), so that “the exception bec[ame] the rule” with the result that “the functions of the Public Prosecution Service [were] exercised mostly by 68 24