23; this is consistent with the position I already held in my partially dissenting opinions in the cases of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador 30 and Nissen Pessonali v. Paraguay. 31 4. In the instant case, in addition to laying grounds for violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, with which I fully agree, the Court felt that there had been a violation of the right to remain in the job under general conditions of equality, as in Article 23(1)(c) and the right to work, particularly regarding the employment stability guaranteed in Article 26 of the Convention. The Court has drawn on the principle of iura novit curia in holding that the arbitrary dismissal of Mr. Aguinaga Aillón from his position as a member of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (hereinafter “TSE”) was also a violation of the right to job stability as part of the right to work. 32 5. The Court furthermore considered the right to remain in the job under general conditions of equality, finding that the dismissal of Mr. Aguinaga Aillón “[…] was arbitrary because it was conducted by a body that was not authorized to do so, via a procedure that was not legally established.” 33 The Court also found violation of the right to job stability, finding “in the case at hand that the decision of the National Congress to dismiss Mr. Aguinaga Aillón from his post as a member of the TSE was arbitrary because it was made outside the bounds of congressional power. It did not satisfy the requirements of guaranteeing due process and thus also constituted a violation of the right to job stability as part of the right to work, which pertained to him as an employee of the TSE during his entire term of office.” 34 It is therefore clear that although the Court found the procedure not legally established and added that the process did not respect the guarantees of due process, nevertheless, both claims were built materially on the same arguments of fact and law, using two different legal foundations—first Article 23(1)(c) and then Article 26 of the Convention. 6. I think that, as I said in my partially dissenting opinion in the Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, the correct approach would have been to apply Article 23 only. As the judgment rightly states, Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention provides, “1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: […] c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.” I therefore believe that once again the Court made the right decision when it included analysis of this article and declared violation of the right to have access to the public service under conditions of equality, as it is clear that, because this was a position on the TSE that also materially entailed judicial duties, Mr. Aguinaga Aillón was indeed working in the public service. The Court also rightly followed the provisions given in the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 25, 35 to the effect that Article 23(1)(c) establishes the right not only to have access to a public service position, but also to hold that position under general conditions of equality and to remain in that position. The implication is 30 Cf. Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2022. Series C No. 464. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 477. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 32 Cf. Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2023. 31 Series C No. 483, para. 100. Cf. Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2023. Series C No. 483, para. 93. 34 Cf. Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2023. Series C No. 483, para. 100. 35 Cf. United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 25, Article 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service, CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 7, July 12, 1996, para. 23. 33