24. In this line of jurisprudence, 39 Casa Nina v. Peru (2020) 40 was a turning point when the Court also incorporated a violation of the right to work contained in Article 26 in addition to the right to “access to […] public service, under conditions of equality” established in Article 23. What was responsible for the infringement of Articles 23 and 26 in Casa Nina was the arbitrary decision that resulted in the removal of Julio Casa Nina from the post of Provisional Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Criminal Prosecution Office of the Province of Huamanga, Ayacucho, Peru. 25. The judgment in that case specified the following guarantees to safeguard the principle of the independence of operators of justice (judges and prosecutors): i) an appropriate appointment; ii) protection from external pressures; iii) irremoveability from office 41 (or job stability) and iv) work stability. 42 We will refer to the implications of the differences between the latter two in the framework of Casa Nina from the viewpoint of Articles 23 and 26, respectively. 26. The Court held that the decision to terminate the victim’s appointment had been arbitrary because it was not based on any of the grounds permitted to safeguard [his] independence 43 as provincial prosecutor and, therefore, the arbitrary dismissal improperly affected his right to remain in the post under conditions of equality. 44 In other words, the violation of this provision was due, on the one hand, to the lack of grounds for applying “the needs of the service” (an arbitrary decision) and, on the other hand, that the provisional prosecutors do not have any guarantee of job stability due to the nature of the appointment as compared to that of career prosecutors, 45 which explains the difference in treatment or in equality of opportunities. 27. This provision of the Convention is affected precisely when these “conditions of equality” are not respected, which results in decisions or acts that are arbitrary. The arbitrariness may be reflected in the absence of objective and reasonable criteria in the See: 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 and 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. 40 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419. 41 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, op. cit., paras. 72 and 79. 42 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, op. cit., para. 78. 43 Therefore, this dimension of the arbitrariness of the decisions that have a negative effect on the guarantee of independence and that impact on human rights. The Court has stated that “[….] i) respect for judicial guarantees entails respect for judicial independence; ii) the dimensions of judicial independence result in the subjective right of the judge that his removal from office is exclusively for the causes permitted, either by means of a procedure that complies with judicial guarantees or because the term or period of his mandate has ended, and iii) when the permanence of judges in office is arbitrarily affected, the right to judicial independence established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention is violated, in conjunction with the right of access to and permanence in public service, under general conditions of equality, established in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention.” Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.), op. cit. para. 199 and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, op. cit., para. 155. 44 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, op. cit., paras. 97 to 99. 45 This unequal treatment, although it is not set out in the analyzed clause of Article 23, is fully made manifest in paras 119 to 121 and 123 of the aforementioned Casa Nina case. 39 8