The independence and autonomy of the prosecution services constitute an indispensable corollary to the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, the general tendency to enhance the independence and effective autonomy of the prosecution services should be encouraged. Prosecutors should be autonomous in their decision-making and should perform their duties free from external pressure or interference, having regard to the principles of separation of powers and accountability. 40 61. In view of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR considers that the standards cited in the previous section are applicable to prosecutors, who by the nature of the function they perform should enjoy the reinforced stability in their position as a guarantee for independence in their work and should only be replaced for grave breaches or because the term or condition established in their designation has been completed or fulfilled, similar to judges. As was indicated in the previous section, the foregoing is applicable to officers appointed provisionally, insofar as they perform the same function as those will full appointments, and it is that function that is protected under the principle of judicial independence. 3. Analysis of the instant case 3.1 As per the right to be heard, the right to defense, and the freedom from ex post facto laws 62. Applying what has been indicated, the Commission observes that in the instant case two resolutions were issued with respect to Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia. In one her appointment was terminated and in the other she was transferred to a place far from where she had been serving. The Commission considers that both resolutions constituted state acts that determine rights and that therefore at the very least the due guarantees established at Article 8(1) of the American Convention are applicable, including the right to be heard and the duty to state the reasons in a judicial decision. In addition, taking into account that one of the resolutions had the effect of terminating her in her position as prosecutor, for the reasons stated just below, the Commission considers that the case should also be analyzed in light of the applicable guarantees at Articles 8(2) and 9 of the Convention. 63. As indicated in the section on factual determinations, the IACHR recalls that the alleged victim was appointed in 1992 as Provisional Judge of Criminal Investigation of Mompox and as of July 1, 1992, she was brought on as Sectional Prosecutor Grade 18, and served as a prosecutor as of that date. On October 29, 2004 the Attorney General of the Nation declared that the alleged victim was relieved of her duties, without stating any reasons. 64. The Commission observes that the original appointment of the alleged victim in her capacity as judge indicated that she was appointed provisionally, while she presented the documentation for confirmation in the position. Subsequently she was incorporated to the position of prosecutor, provisionally, without any term or condition. 65. The State indicated that the Attorney General of the Nation has the power to remove, at his or her discretion, the officials appointed provisionally, that these acts need not state reasons, and that they are presumed to be legal. 66. The IACHR considers that the free removal of provisional prosecutors has a negative impact on their independence, which should be guaranteed, insofar as it renders them vulnerable to being removed because of the decisions they make, or by virtue of arbitrary decisions by the administrative or judicial entities. 40 Consultative Council of European Prosecutors, Opinion No. 9 (2014), Rome Charter, points IV and V. 11