work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts…”.91 113. In addition, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its General Comment No. 18 on the right to work, affirmed the obligations of the States “to guarantee to assure individuals their right to freely chosen or accepted work, including the right not to be deprived of work unfairly.”92 The Committee also established that the States have the obligation to respect this right, which implies that they “refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of that right.”93 114. With respect to work stability as a component of the right to work, the Court has been clear that it does not consist in “an unrestricted permanence in the post; but rather, to respect this right, among other measures, by granting due guarantees of protection to the worker so that, if he or she is dismissed this is with justification, which means that the employer must provide sufficient reasons to impose this sanction with the due guarantees, and that the worker may appeal this decision before the domestic authorities, who must verify that the justification given is not arbitrary or unlawful.”94 The Court held in San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela that the State did not comply with its obligation to guarantee the right to work and, therefore, work stability, when it does not protect state officials from arbitrary dismissals.95 115. The Court finds that the State proceeded in an arbitrary manner in dismissing the former congressional employees identified in this judgment because they were removed from their positions without having been provided justifiable grounds and because they were barred from filing a writ of amparo to contest their dismissals. The irregularity of these dismissals was judicially recognized with respect to 20 of the alleged victims (infra para. 81) and has been recognized on a larger scale by implementation of the National Registry, which contains 140 of the 184 persons involved in this judgment. The Court, thus, concludes that State conduct affected the right to the work stability of the alleged victims and is a violation of Article 26 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 116. The Court notes that the representatives also argued that the alleged victims had their life plan curtailed and that other economic, social and cultural rights were infringed; in particular, the rights to the enjoyment of fair salaries, opportunities of employment, proper working conditions for all, social security, nutrition, adequate housing and health. However, the record in this case contains neither facts nor evidence on such violations. Nor does the factual framework in the Merits Report have information on the consequences that the dismissal of the alleged victims had on their life plans. Thus, the Court will not rule on these allegations. 117. Finally, the Court notes that the normative evolution in Peru has set aside the norms that served as a basis to implement the collective dismissals that were a violation of Article 26. The Court welcomes those changes to the extent that they have effectively guaranteed 91 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 7(b). Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 18. The right to work (Art. 6), E/C.12/GC/18, of November 24, 2005, para. 4. 92 93 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 18, supra, para. 22. Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 150 and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 134. 94 95 Cf. Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 221 and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 134. 32