B. Position of the State 13. The State asserts that the petitioner was not dismissed nor was he subject to disciplinary action rather that his removal came about because his appointment, which was of a provisional nature, was concluded. 14. The State explains that, in keeping with Peruvian legislation, the provisional post that the petitioner held is a position of trust, which is temporary and does not give rise to any additional rights beyond those inherent to such post. According to the State, Law No. 24041, which provides that “public servants hired for permanent posts, may not be fired or dismissed, except for the reasons specified under Legislative Decree 276,” is applicable. Such law, however, according to the State, does not cover those who hold “political or trust” positions. As a result, the State contends that the petitioner’s removal from his position as a provisional prosecutor does not constitute a violation of any conventional or constitutional right, and was ordered by the Attorney General’s office of the Nation in exercise of the powers conferred thereon by law. 15. The State indicates that it did not commit a violation of the judicial guarantees and protection recognized under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, inasmuch as the petitioner had access to each and every one of the judicial bodies where he brought actions, where he was able to make use of his “right to respond” and was afforded the guarantees of due process. 16. As to the principle of legality protected under Article 9 of the Convention, the State asserts that said right was not violated as the decisions that upheld the termination of the petitioner’s provisional employment are grounded in the law that governs the positions of such nature. 17. Furthermore, with regard to the right to equality before the law protected by Article 24, the State indicates that while Peruvian case law provides for the right to equality, such right does not include under any circumstances equal criteria for dismissing provisional prosecutors as compared to permanent ones. 18. Finally, the State considers that as the petitioner obtained unfavorable rulings domestically, he is seeking to use the Commission as a “fourth instance” to review the criterion that has already been decided on by Peruvian judicial bodies with regard to provisional prosecutors. The State contends that the decision to remove the petitioner from his position, as well as the domestic rulings handed down with regard to the petitioner’s removal from his position as provisional prosecutor, are completely valid and grounded in the Peruvian legal system. IV. ANALYSIS REGARDING COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBLITY A. Competence 19. The petitioner has standing, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to present petitions to the Commission. The petition identifies as an alleged victim, an individual, with regard to whom the Peruvian State committed to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Peru has been a State party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Thus, the commission is competent ratione personae to review the petition. 20. Furthermore, the Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that purportedly took place in Peru, a State party to said Convention. The Commission is competent ratione temporis, given that the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date upon when the facts alleged in the petition presumably occurred. Lastly, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition denounces potential violations of human rights protected under the American Convention.