may potentially constitute violations of rights ensured under said instrument. This review does not imply any prejudgment or foreshadow any opinion on the merits of the case.1 29. Furthermore, neither the American Convention nor the IACHR Rules of Procedure require a petitioner to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in the matter brought before the InterAmerican Commission, although petitioners may do so. It is for the Inter-American Commission, based on the system’s jurisprudence, to determine in its admissibility report which provisions of the relevant InterAmerican instruments are applicable and could be found to have been violated if the alleged facts are proven by sufficient elements. 30. The instant case is about the alleged removal of a provisional prosecutor without a cause. In the context of the case, the alleged victim argues that from 1991 to 2000 must of the prosecutors in Peru were Provisional because there was no agency that appointed prosecutors and for this reason the attorney general’s office appointed them on a provisional basis subsequent to evaluating them. The petitioner contends that the provisional prosecutors discharged the same duties as permanent prosecutors but were removed by the Attorney General’s office without any prior proceedings. 31. The petitioner argues that he was appointed and removed in this context, as he was removed from office as provisional prosecutor through a decision of the Attorney General's Office, without trial, without motivation and in breach of the requirement established in the legislation under which the separation would be appropriate only if they appoint a permanent prosecutor. The petitioner also notes that in the decision the Attorney General’s Office referred to the existence of two complaints filed against him and that he doesn’t know so far whether the decision to separate him from his post was a sanction. In relation to the complaints, he adds that he was acquitted of the charges brought against him. 32. On its part, the State contends that the petitioner’s removal was nothing more than the result of the decision to end his appointment, grounded in the fact that provisional prosecutors, in keeping with Peruvian legislation, are considered to be officials in trust positions, who have no rights beyond those that stem from the post. Therefore, the State holds that the petitioner’s removal from his position is not a violation of any right enshrined in a Convention. 33. In this regard, the Commission has underscored the importance of the independence of justice operators to guarantee the right to access to justice. In this sense, the Commission has indicated that the removal of provisional justice operators without complying with the condition or the time frame previously established, or in the absence of guarantees of due process can pose risks to its independence and could allow them to be subject to multiple pressures of the authority from which its permanence in the position depends2. 34. Taking into account the petitioner’s allegations, the Commission will examine in the merits of the case if the separation from office constituted an act that had a punitive nature, and as such required the guarantees of due process provided under Article 8 of the American Convention3 and the guarantees laid down in Article 9 of the American Convention. On the other hand, in case it is not proved that the separation from office constituted a sanction, the Commission will examine if the act of separation of the alleged victim required motivation to meet the guarantees and necessary limits to avoid abuses of power that endanger the rights 1 See IACHR, Report N° 36/13, Petition 403-02, Admissibility, José Delfín Acosta Martínez and Family , Argentina, July 11, 2013, para 40. 2 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators, Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 89. 3 In this sense, the Commission recalls that Article 8 of the American Convention is not limited to judicial remedies in a strict sense, but “to all the requirements that must be observed in the procedural stage” in order for all persons to be able to defend their rights adequately vis-à-vis any type of State action that could affect them. According to the Inter American Court “the due process of law must be respected in any act or omission on the part of the State bodies in a proceeding, whether of a punitive administrative, or of a judicial nature. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Baena –Ricardo et.al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para.124.