dismissal or separation from the position or that the separation is decided for reasons that are discriminatory. 46 Another manifestation of “arbitrariness” 47 is when decisions are taken without offering any grounds. Therefore, especially in the case of operators of justice, the lack of grounds –the resulting arbitrary decision– is related to the specific guarantee of stability and irremoveability since these guarantees are not respected when the separation does not exclusively fall within the permitted causes during a procedure that complies with the guarantees of due process (among them, the grounds). 48 28. The Court in Casa Nina also considered that the “arbitrariness of the decision to dismiss” had an additional effect with respect to the right to work in its aspect of “work stability.” It, therefore, held that among the special guarantees that operators of justice required was work stability as a basic condition for the independence necessary to properly fulfill their procedural functions. 49 In that case, termination without grounds other than “the needs of the service” interfered with this right that he had as a provisional prosecutor. 50 In other words, what Article 26 protected was the employeeemployer work relationship that was abruptly terminated without any justification, other than the mere mention of the needs of the service. 29. However, in Mina Cuero v. Ecuador (2022), 51 the Court’s current judges extended the application of Article 23(1)(c) to employees other than operators of justice (in that case, a policeman). The standard that was used to find the international responsibility of the State under Article 23 was that, unlike in previous cases, that provision was applicable “”to all who exercise public functions, under a literal reading of Article 23(1)(c).” 52 Thus, when the continuance of public servants in their positions is arbitrarily affected, they fall under the analysis of the right “to access, continuance or stability” in the public positions or functions. 30. Moreover, the right to work under Article 26 guarantees the right not to be unfairly deprived of work. 53 Thus, it must be understood that “work stability” implies that the employees must be ensured that they will only be removed or dismissed for justifiable cause, which means that the employer must provide sufficient grounds to impose this sanction with due guarantees and that the employees can appeal such decision before the competent domestic authorities who must verify that the justification is not arbitrary nor unlawful. 54 The Court has already held that an arbitrary dismissal is one that is unjustified, one that lacks grounds for dismissal, 55 or one that is based on discrimination 56 by a public or private employer. Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 138. 47 The Court has stated that: “Decisions adopted by domestic bodies that could affect human rights […] should be duly reasoned; otherwise, they would be arbitrary decisions.” Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 152 and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 106. 48 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, op. cit., para. 80. 49 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, op. cit., paras. 78, 108 and 109. 50 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, op. cit., para. 109. 51 Cf. Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2022. Series C No. 464. 52 Cf. Case of Mina Cuero, op. cit., para. 108. 53 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 147. 54 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, op. cit., para.150. 55 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, op. cit., paras. 151 and 153. 56 Cf Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 221 46 9