96. Regarding the alleged violations of the right of defense, the presumption of innocence and the principle of legality, the Court reiterates that it cannot be concluded that the procedure followed by the administrative authority was of a disciplinary or punitive nature. Even though both resolutions included a general reference to the existence of complaints and charges filed against the presumed victim, this mention was made with the purpose or interest that the disciplinary or judicial proceedings, as applicable, would be processed and concluded notwithstanding the decision to remove the presumed victim from his function as a provisional prosecutor.86 Consequently, the Court considers that there is insufficient evidence to make the requested analysis of the said rights. B.3.3. Right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality 97. Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention establishes the right to have access to public service under general conditions of equality. The Court has interpreted that access in equal conditions would constitute an insufficient guarantee if it were not accompanied by the effective protection of permanence in the position accessed. 87 98. In cases of the arbitrary removal of judges, this Court has considered that this right is related to the judge’s guarantee of tenure or irremovability,88 which, based on the grounds described previously (supra paras. 78 and 79), is also applicable in the case of prosecutors. Respect and guarantee of this right are met when the criteria and procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal are objective and reasonable and the individual does not suffer discrimination in the exercise of this right. 89 In this regard, the Court has indicated that equal opportunities in access to positions and stability in the position ensure freedom from any political pressures or interference.90 99. Based on the above, the Court considers that the decision terminating the presumed victim’s appointment was arbitrary, because it was not based on any of the reasons permitted in order to ensure his independence in the post of provisional prosecutor. Consequently, this arbitrary removal unduly affected Julio Casa Nina’s right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality, in violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention. B.3.4. Failure to adapt domestic law in relation to the guarantee of tenure for prosecutors 100. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention obliges the States Parties to adopt, (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, para. 145; Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 189; Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 105 and 110, and Case of Rico v. Argentina, supra, para. 55. This is inferred, above all, from the content of the resolution that terminated the appointment, which indicated that this decision was “without prejudice to the legal actions that could be pertinent based on the complaint and charge that are being processed.” Cf. Resolution of the Prosecutor General of January 21, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 2 to the Merits Report, folio 6). 86 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 115. 87 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 43, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 94. 88 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 206, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 116. 89 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 72, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 116. 90 28