22. When addressing this matter, the Court started by clarifying the issue of recognition of the specific guarantees for judges and prosecutors. To this end, it based itself on three premises: (i) the State’s duty to ensure the provision of judicial services; (ii) the fundamental need that those who intervene in the provision of such services are tenured officials, with pre-established causes for removal or dismissal, and (iii) in exceptional cases in which the designation of provisional officials is required, the appointment, permanence and termination of the exercise of the function is subject to predetermined conditions” (paragraph 69). 23. Therefore, in this opinion, I underscore that the Court has indicated the need that, with regard to violations of human rights and, in general, in criminal cases, “States must ensure an independent and objective investigation,” 7 and “has emphasized that the authorities responsible for the investigation must enjoy de jure and de facto independence, which requires not only hierarchical or institutional independence, but also real independence’” (paragraph 69).8 Added to which, “in order to safeguard the independence and objectivity of prosecutors in the exercise of their functions, they are also protected by the following guarantees: (i) guarantees of appropriate appointment; (ii) to irremovability from office, and (iii) to be protected against external pressures” (paragraph 79). 24. It is bearing this in mind that I stress the special importance of safeguarding the independence of prosecutors in order to preserve the rule of law. This has already been developed by the Court in the case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, in which it concluded that the guarantee of stability and irremovability of judges, addressed at safeguarding their independence was applicable to prosecutors owing to the nature of their functions. This assertion is especially significant in the inter-American environment where, in recent decades, almost all the countries have put in practice adversarial systems of criminal investigation. The impartiality of the Public Prosecution Service is essential to avoid arbitrariness and to ensure fairness in the exercise of criminal investigations. 25. Those who work in public service are also encompassed by the right to work. I emphasize the provisions of the International Labour Organization’s Convention 151 7 Cf. inter alia, Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 108, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 150.These requirements, among others, are referred to in the following instruments: the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, Article 12; Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 1985, Article 8; United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2003, Article 11(2), and International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 2006, Article 12. See also: Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary or Summary Executions, Recommended by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in its Resolution 1989/65, of May 24, 1989, Principle 9; Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the annex to its Resolution 55/89 of December 4, 2000, Principle 2, and Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, Application of Article 2 by the States Parties, CAT/C/GC/2, January 24, 2008, para. 26. 8 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 95; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 81, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 122.