to give effect to the rights and freedoms contained in Article 12(4). However, it indicated that there are also safeguards to protect freedom of religion, including the autonomy of religious communities and the right of parents to ensure that their children receive religious education in accordance with their own convictions, within a general framework of non-discrimination. 72 45. Regarding the certificate of suitability, it indicated that this serves as a mechanism to guarantee the autonomy of religious entities to pursue their basic activities, including the selection of their teachers. It held that requiring this particular qualification for the specific function of representing the religious community through teaching ensures that the teaching will be faithfully imparted by those who, in fact, represent that community according to its criteria. Moreover, the certificate is only a requirement to perform a specific and defined role within schools, which is to teach the subject of denominational religion. All persons who hold professional certificates in education, or who are legally qualified or authorized to practice the profession, are eligible to be hired to perform teaching tasks, either in the classroom, or in management or to perform work of a technical-pedagogical nature. 73 The State insisted that possession of a certificate of suitability is not a legal requirement to be hired as teaching staff and that, for the same reason, the loss of the certificate of suitability is not a legal cause for termination of employment. 46. With regard to the breach of the duty of respect, it argued that Decree 924 does not delegate public authority to the churches as the certification of the suitability of teachers of denominational religion is not an attribution of the public authorities because that is not a mandate of the State. On the contrary, this power belongs to the religious communities or to their authorities. The State also considered that it was not responsible for a violation of the Convention due to a breach of the duty to guarantee, or for the alleged failure to comply with the duty of protection under the argument that the judicial authorities did not take any action to safeguard the rights of the alleged victim. On this point it emphasized that the State had adequate and effective remedies that were not exhausted and that this fact has an impact on the merits of the case. 74 47. Regarding the right to equal access to public service, it noted that since 1991, Sandra Pavez Pavez had an employment contract with the Education and Health Corporation of San Bernardo; that the employees of municipal corporations under private law are not public servants; and that, therefore, they are not entitled to the right to job stability in public service. 75 The State indicated, therefore, that Sandra Pavez Pavez, as well as the other teachers and educational personnel employed by private law corporations, were not public servants and, therefore, Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention is not applicable in the instant case. 48. The State also pointed out that, even if Sandra Pavez’s job were to be classified as a public position, the facts of the case are such that the right in question is not affected, since the right contained in the Convention protects public officials, or potential public officials, from being discriminated against in the processes of appointment, promotion, suspension or dismissal. It 72 The State insisted that religion classes are optional for students and their families in all the country’s educational establishments, even if they have an institutional religious education program, that religion classes are not evaluated with a numerical grade, and that a student’s performance in this subject does not affect his or her promotion to the next grade or education level. 73 It also recalled that the lack of a certificate of suitability does not alter this fact, and that education professionals are eligible to teach any other subject in the classroom, or to teach religion classes on behalf of other churches or religious entities that are willing to issue a certificate of suitability. 74 It argued, specifically with regard to the alleged discrimination to which Sandra Pavez Pavez had been subjected, as well as the alleged violation of the right to work and access to public service, that an appeal for protection was filed against the Vicar for Education and not against a public authority or the educational establishment. Moreover, it considered that the judicial decisions handed down at the domestic level did not represent a breach of the State's duty to protect. It recalled that a ruling dismissing the claims was not in itself a reason to attribute international responsibility to the State and that, furthermore, such decisions were not in breach of the duty to state grounds. 75 It recalled that the teachers or personnel who work in schools could not be classified as public officials, since they are not public servants under Chilean administrative law. 15