08, of judicial guarantees and protection, as well as the right to access public service under general conditions of equality, rights enshrined in Articles 8, 23 and 25 of the American Convention. Taking into account that said violations would presumably be inferred from the application of the legal framework in force at the time they were evaluated and not renewed, the Commission considers that it could tend establish a violation of Article of the Convention to the detriment of these petitioners. 52. Regarding petitions 320-03, 739-08, and 1065-08, the Commission does not find any elements indicating the possible violation of the right to the progressive development of economic, social and cultural rights, the right to protection of honor, the right to integrity, or the right to equality before the law enshrined in Articles 24, 26, 11 and 5 of the Convention. Regarding the supposed constitutional retroactivity, the Commission shall examine, in the stage of the merits, whether or not the creation and application of a constitutional regulation that creates a process to evaluate the suitability of judges and prosecutors in itself constitute a violation of the principle of judicial independence with respect to the guarantee of tenure, which could constitute a violation of the rights set forth in Articles 8 and 9 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 2 of said instrument. 53. Regarding petition 948-04, the Commission notes that the alleged victim opted for not appearing at the evaluation and renewal process to which he was called, because he felt that it represented a retroactive application that breached the terms of his appointment, which provided security of tenure until he was 70 years of age. The Commission shall examine, in the stage of the merits of the case, if the Political Constitution of Peru of 1993, by establishing processes of evaluation and renewal for judges and prosecutors, might have been incompatible with the guarantees of due process of law and judicial independence, nonretroactivity, and the right to access public service under general conditions of equality, as enshrined in Articles 8, 9, 23 and 25 of the Convention, in connection with the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law enshrined in Article 2 of the same instrument. V. CONCLUSIONS 54. On the basis of the considerations of fact and law presented and without detriment to the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Commission concludes that three of the petitions reviewed in the present report meet the requirements of admissibility as set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the Inter-American Convention and as a consequence, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare petition 822-08 inadmissible on the basis of the terms set forth in paragraph 47 of the present report. 2. To declare petitions 320-03, 948-04, 739-08 and 1065-08 included in the present report admissible with respect to Articles 8, 9, 23 and 25 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights in connection with the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. 3. To declare petitions 320-03, 948-04, 739-08 and 1065-08 included in the present report inadmissible with respect to Articles 5, 11, 24 and 26 of the same instrument. Done and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 24th day of the month of March, 2015. (signed): Rose-Marie Belle Antoine, President; James L. Cavallaro, First Vice President; José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez, Second Vice President; Felipe González, Rosa María Ortiz, Tracy Robinson and Paulo Vannuchi, Commissioners