It also recalls that even in the case of provisional prosecutors, the safeguard of their independence requires the State to provide for an appropriate appointment process that determines the precise conditions for the performance of their functions and the causes for its termination, consistent with the nature of the functions that they will perform and to guarantee them a certain stability in the post, while they are occupying it. 86. Ultimately, the failure to specify any resolutive condition that would determine the termination of the appointment as a provisional prosecutor,69 permits the Court to note that Mr. Casa Nina occupied the post without the security of tenure; 70 in other words, without an essential safeguard to ensure his independence. B.3.2. Obligation to provide reasoned decisions, tenure, and termination of the appointment of Julio Casa Nina as a provisional prosecutor 87. In a Resolution of January 21, 2003, the Prosecutor General decided to terminate the appointment of Mr. Casa Nina as Provisional Deputy Provincial Prosecutor of the Judicial District of Ayacucho.71 The Resolution considered that “the appointment of provisional prosecutors is of a temporary nature, subject to the needs for the service.”72 Consequently, the interested party filed an appeal for review, which the Prosecutor General declared without merit on February 14, 2003, reiterating that “the appointment of provisional prosecutors is of a temporary nature.”73 Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that both administrative acts briefly based the termination of Mr. Casa Nina’s appointment on the temporary nature of the appointment and on the needs for the service. 88. Regarding the duty to provide a statement of reasons, the Court recalls that, in any persons who [were] not qualified for those posts, and they ha[d] not undergone periodic evaluations of their technical or ethical aptitude.” Cf. IACHR. Second report on the situation of human rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, June 2, 2000, Chapter II, para. 36. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/peru2000en/chapter2.htm. The Court takes note of the distinction that exists in domestic law between “provisional prosecutors” and “noncareer provisional prosecutors,” understanding that the former are career prosecutors who, in the absence of a higherranking official, replace them provisionally (article 27 of Legislative Decree No. 052, Organic Law of the Public Prosecution Service, supra footnote 26), while the latter, based on the procedure designating them, do not belong to the prosecutorial career, a category into which it could be understood Mr. Casa Nina fell at the time of his appointment. According to witness Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez, the entry of a “non-career provisional prosecutor” into the institution was conditioned “to the presence of a vacancy, to the existence of the ‘need for the service’ […] and insofar as he demonstrated probity and aptitude in the performance of the function. The termination comes into effect when the ‘need for the service’ or the institutional budget concludes.” She indicated that this is in accordance with Resolution No. 4330-2014-MP-FN of October 15, 2014, adopting the Regulations for the appointment, evaluation and permanence of provisional prosecutors throughout the country. Cf. Statement made by Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez (evidence file, volume VI, affidavits, folios 1243, 1244 and 1255). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is a distinction of terms that arose following the facts of the instant case. Ultimately, what is important for deciding the dispute is the reference to the notion of the “needs for the service” as justification for the appointment or designation and for the termination of the execution of the function of the provisional prosecutor (that is, the “non-career provisional prosecutor,” according to the said Resolution No. 4330-2014-MP-FN), as occurred in the case of Julio Casa Nina, a matter that was reiterated by the witness. 69 70 The witness Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez stated that “one of the rights of prosecutors is permanence in the service until they are seventy (70) years of age, pursuant to the Peruvian Constitution; however, in the case of the non-career provisional prosecutor this benefit cannot be required, because their permanence depends on the decision of the head of the Public Prosecution Service, that is, the Prosecutor General, because based on the ‘needs for the service’ the latter may terminate their ‘designation.’” Cf. Statement made by Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez (evidence file, volume VI, affidavits, folio 1243). Adding up the time spent in the two appointments, Mr. Casa Nina executed the functions of provisional prosecutor for a total of four years, six months and 21 days. 71 Cf. Resolution of the Prosecutor General of January 21, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 2 to the Merits Report, folio 6). 72 Cf. Resolution of the Prosecutor General of February 14, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 4 to the Merits Report, folio 12). 73 25