III. SCOPE OF THE DIFFERENTIATED PROTECTION AND SIMULTANEOUS EFFECT OF THE RIGHTS CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 23(1)(C) AND 26 OF THE CONVENTION 20. Another of the novel aspects of this judgment relative to the precedents of Dismissed Congressional Employees (2006) and Canales Huapaya et al. (2015) was the declaration of the violation of the right of all citizens to have access to the public service of their country, under general conditions of equality, contained in Article 23(1)(c). It is a matter of a civic exercise, the participation of the citizenry in the polis from the perspective of isocracy. This right is, in reality, a general right to participate in government, the right of all to participate in the administration of public matters, which includes access to the functions of public institutions. 34 21. Traditionally, the Court has specified that the violation of Article 23(1)(c) is closely tied to the guarantee of stability or irremoveability of the position of operators of justice (as part of the principle of judicial independence). 35 22. This conception is the product of an historical evolution of the Court’s case law towards a desirable broadening of the scope of protection under Article 23(1)(c). In Dismissed Congressional Employees v. Peru (2001), the Court’s hermeneutical exercise placed a greater attachment to a literal reading of the article when it held that the provision only protected the right to have access to, but not continuance in, public service under conditions of equality. 36 There the Court considered that, although the three magistrates had been dismissed for procedural errors during the processing of a constitutional claim, they had “access” to public service and, therefore, it was not appropriate to apply that provision. 23. Since Apitz Barbera v. Venezuela (2008), the Court has broadened, by obiter dictum, a margin of protection of the right regarding not only access, but also continuance in public service. 37 This position would be materialized the following year in Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela (2009), 38 in which the Court noted that “the access in equal conditions would constitute an insufficient guarantee if it were not accompanied by the effective protection of the continuance in what is accessed.” 34 See Concurring Opinion of Judge Rodrigo Mudrovitsch in Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, op. cit., paras. 113 to 116. 35 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 141; 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. 222; Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, para. 180; Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, paras. 94 and 95; Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, paras. 116 and 117; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, paras. 98 to 99; Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, paras. 110 and 111 and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, paras. 160 and 161. 36 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 103. 37 Cf. 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. 206. 38 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 108. 7