25. This case, therefore, finds violation of not only the right to have access to public service under general conditions of equality, as enshrined in Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention (due to the association with the guarantee of “stability and irremovability in the position”), but also the right to “job stability” as part of the judges’ right to work, protected under Article 26 of the Convention. V. OUR DISSENTING OPINION: FAILURE TO ADDRESS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM FROM EX POST FACTO LAWS 26. While we find much to applaud in the judgment, we believe that it fell short regarding a central point: violation of the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws. Both the Commission and the representatives of the victim argued that the State had violated Article 9 of the Convention when it sanctioned Mr. Aguinaga Aillón at the time of his dismissal from his position, based on no grounds previously defined in Ecuadorian laws or regulations. The Inter-American Commission argued that “the punitive nature of this act of state and the resulting decision on applicable guarantees did not arise, as in other cases, from a formal process...” 24 27. The position of the Inter-American Commission is not surprising, since the State itself recognized in the case of The Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador that the justices on the Supreme Court had been dismissed on no grounds and via an ad hoc procedure. The State of Ecuador said in that case: With respect to the State’s acknowledgment of the violation of Article 9 of the Convention, based on the fact that Ecuadorian law did not establish specific grounds for dismissing the judges from office, “which, through the National Congress’s resolution could have been understood as an ad-hoc proceeding of a punitive nature,” the Court considers that said acquiescence does not address several arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives on this matter (infra paras. 127 and 128). For example, the representatives mentioned the existence of a proceeding for sanctioning Supreme Court justices and stated that the grounds for such sanctions were very broad and undefined [...]” 25 (emphasis added). 28. In the two cases, Quintana Coello and Camba Campos, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for violating Article 9 of the American Convention when the judges were dismissed. The State added in the latter case (Camba Campos) that it accepted international responsibility for violating this right “because there were no grounds established by law for the removal from office of the presumed victims.” The State said, “although it is true that the National Congress could make a constitutional and legal analysis, this should have included clear mechanisms to submit to review the tenure and the duration of the terms of the former members of the Constitutional Tribunal. The absence of legal certainty concerning the grounds for removing the former members obliges the State to acknowledge its international responsibility in this regard” 26 (emphasis added). 29. The Court majority found in the instant case on dismissal of the victim from the TSE that because the National Congress lacked authority to remove Mr. Aguinaga 24 Cf. Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 47. 25 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 21. 26 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 14. 8