III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioner 6. The petitioner states that from 1991 to 2000 there was no agency that appointed prosecutors in Peru and for this reason the attorney general’s office appointed them on a provisional basis subsequent to evaluating them. The petitioner states the provisional prosecutors discharged the same duties as permanent prosecutors but were removed by the Attorney General’s office without any prior proceedings. 7. Under these circumstances, the petitioner contends that he was appointed as the “Provisional Provincial Deputy Prosecutor for the Joint Provincial Office of the Prosecutor for La Mar”, pursuant to resolution No. 464-98-MP-CEMP of June 30, 1998, and that thereafter, he was appointed Provisional Provincial Deputy Prosecutor for the Second Office of the Criminal Provincial Prosecutor for Huamanga, pursuant to resolution No. 565-2002-MP-FN of April 8, 2002. He states that he held the position of Prosecutor for five consecutive years without ever having been subject to any administrative penalty. 8. Nevertheless, the petitioner states that pursuant to Resolution No. 087-2003-MP-FN of January 21, 2003, the Attorney General of the Nation [Fiscal de la Nación] decided to remove him from his post without any cause for ordering said removal. Nonetheless, in said Resolution, a reference was made to a complaint and a report filed against him, which were pending at that time. 9. The petitioner indicates that he filed a motion for reconsideration [recurso de reconsideración] which was declared groundless on February 14, 2003, based on the fact that his appointment was of a temporary nature. He filed an amparo appeal regarding this decision with the First Civil Court of Huamanga, Ayacucho, Peru, which was declared groundless, taking into account that his removal from the post did not constitute a dismissal for any disciplinary matter, rather it was a decision to end his appointment . He points out that this decision was upheld by the Civil Court pursuant to a judgment of July 11, 2005, which ruled that the petitioner could not assert rights that are conferred on permanent prosecutors. Finally, the petitioner filed a constitutional remedy [recurso de agravio constitucional] regarding this ruling with the Constitutional Court, which declared it groundless because provisional posts have a status that does not give rise to any further rights than those inherent to such posts. 10. The petitioner claims that under Peruvian legislation, permanence in the post of provisional prosecutors continues while there are no permanent prosecutors to replace the provisional ones, and in his case this requirement had not yet been fulfilled. In this respect the petitioner states that Article 245 of the Peruvian Organic Law of the Judiciary is applicable. Said Article provides that in the case of provisional and substitute magistrates, they cease to exercise their functions when the post they temporarily hold is covered by a permanent magistrate. The petitioner contends that he was never informed about any fact, situation or accusation against him, nor were charges of improper or bad conduct ever raised, and he was removed from his post without any prior proceedings. In this regard, the petitioner considers that his removal from his post by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation [Fiscalía de la Nación] was an arbitrary act that violated his right to due process and his right to defense protected under Article 8 of the American Convention. 11. The petitioner contends that Article 9 of the American Convention was violated as he was removed from his post without having committed any specific violation provided for by law that constitutes conduct unbecoming to a prosecutor. He also indicates that the State violated Article 11 of the American Convention, given that removal from a post for no reason has stigmatizing effects vis-a-vis the community, which gets the impression that said removal stems from improper and even illegal conduct. 12. The petitioner argues that Article 24 of the American Convention, which provides for the right to equal protection under the law, was violated inasmuch as the aforementioned situation constitutes unequal protection of provisional and permanent prosecutors under the law and that his right to effective judicial protection, stipulated in Article 25 of the American Convention, was violated, given that there was no effective remedy allowing judicial oversight of removal proceedings of provisional prosecutors and judges.