Salvador indicates that: “[a] right which is recognized or in effect in a State by virtue of its internal legislation or international conventions may not be restricted or curtailed on the pretext that this Protocol does not recognize the right or recognizes it to a lesser degree.” In application of this provision, the Monitoring Mechanism of the Working Group on the Protocol of San Salvador has been established responsible for defining the indicators that should be included in the reports of the States Parties and for monitoring compliance with the obligations under the Protocol. 6 12. In my opinion, based on the foregoing and its precedents, it is necessary to conclude that it is not possible to restrict access to inter-American justice in the case of alleged violations of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. That position would even be contrary to the principle of the pro persona interpretation of human rights established in Article 29 of the Convention understanding this as a hermeneutic tool from the systemic perspective of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. 13. I have also noted that the Protocol of San Salvador, while developing the content of the economic, social and cultural rights, expressly prescribes the use of the system of individual petition in Article 19(6) for the rights to work and education. Consequently, in those cases, it is not necessary to make any effort to argue this, because the Court’s competence results from the text of the treaty. 14. In addition, it should be borne in mind that Part II of the Convention indicates in its Article 44 that: “Any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.” Meanwhile, Article 48 indicates that: “[w]hen the Commission receives a petition or communication alleging violation of any of the rights protected by this Convention, it shall proceed as follows … .” Similarly, Article 62(3) of the Convention indicates that: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it …” (underlining added). 15. The analysis of the preceding articles reveals that: (1) the civil, political, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights may be submitted to the consideration of both organs of protection; (2) the Commission and the IACtHR can have competence over the cases lodged in this regard; (3) no distinction is made between civil, political, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights as regards their protection, and (4) to claim that the inter-American organs of protection can only examine the civil and political rights would be contrary to the notions of universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelationship of the human rights, and entail a fragmentation of the international protection of the individual that would be directly detrimental to human dignity, which is the basis and purpose of human rights 16. In the case of the removal of Sr. Casa Nina, it is argued that there was a failure to provide an objective resolutive condition prior to his appointment to office establishing the termination of his appointment as a provisional prosecutor. Thus, the Court understood " that Mr. Casa Nina occupied the post without the security of tenure,6 that is without an essential safeguard to ensure his independence” The witness Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez stated that “one of the rights of prosecutors is permanence in the service until they are seventy (70) years of age, pursuant to the Peruvian Constitution; however, in the case of the non-career provisional prosecutor this benefit cannot be required, because their permanence depends on the