(paragraph 86). It should be indicated that over and above the provisional nature of the post, the State had the duty to ensure objective criteria for the termination of the provisional appointment in order to guarantee independence in the exercise of the adversarial function. 17. Thus, by a harmonious interpretation of the inter-American instruments considering the interdependence and indivisibility of the civil and political rights on the one hand, and the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights on the other, the Court is able to rule on the violations of one or the other. Therefore, the same fact based on act or omission may simultaneously signify the violation of a civil and political right and of an economic, social, cultural or environmental right. 18. As can be seen from the third operative paragraph the judgment: “The State is responsible for the violation of judicial guarantees, the right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality and the right to work recognized in Articles 8(1), 23(1)(c) and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument.” 19. I agree with this paragraph inasmuch as it reveals that there was a joint and simultaneous violation of the rights: to special protection for access to and permanence in public office and independence of the prosecutor established in Article 23(1) of the Convention, and the right to work, because the independence guaranteed by job stability, pursuant to Article 26 of the Convention, was not respected or ensured. Moreover, this right is also recognized by Article XIV of the American Declaration which establishes that: “Every person who works has the right to receive such remuneration as will, in proportion to his capacity and skill, assure him a standard of living suitable for himself and for his family.” In my opinion, in the instant case, this joint and indivisible violation of rights provides the grounds for the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 20. This is so because I consider that the violated civil and political rights are indivisible from the right to work, because the violations of the right recognized in Article 23(1) of the American Convention are directly related and constitute facts that are inseparable from the violation of the right to work. On this basis, I will now examine the importance of the protection of participation in public service, its relationship to the human right to work and the independence of prosecutors under the democratic rule of law. III. 21. Protection of participation in public service, its relationship to the human right to work and the independence of prosecutors under the democratic rule of law As the judgment indicates, the protection of participation in public service in relation to the human right to work and the protection of the independence of prosecutors is essential under the democratic rule of law. Consequently, in order to examine the arguments of the Court, I will present my thoughts on some concepts related to this issue linking the protection of the universal system of human rights to the regional system. decision of the service, that is, the Prosecutor General, because due to ‘needs for the service’ he/she may terminate his ‘designation.’” Cf. Statement made by Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez (evidence file, volume VI, affidavits, folio 1243).