67. The IACHR reiterates, taking into account what is indicated in the previous section on the nature of the function they perform, that prosecutors should have guarantees of reinforced stability and should only be separated from their positions for incurring in serious disciplinary breaches or for completing the term or satisfying the condition established in their designation. Along these lines, the Commission considers that in the instant case the appointment of the alleged victim without any term or condition was incompatible with the Convention. 68. The IACHR further recalls that the lack of reasoning of the decision did not allow one to understand the reasons that resulted in the termination of the alleged victim’s appointment, so as to clear up the suspicions and allegations that it was in retaliation for the decisions made in her capacity as prosecutor in the context of a criminal investigation for breach of public duty. The IACHR considers that the act of appointment of Ms. Martínez Esquivia does not offer the minimal safeguards in terms of time frame or condition subsequent such that it would be possible to understand the service-related reasons that were the basis of her provisional designation. This, together with the lack of reasoning in the decision to separate her from her position, underscores the precarity in which the alleged victim performed her key function in a State under the rule of law, which found its highest expression in the removal from her position without any reasons being given, a position that she had held for a considerable period, in this case more than a decade. 69. In this scenario, in which the State has not succeeded in showing that the provisional status of the alleged victim had a specific aim associated with a delimited time frame or a condition subsequent, under the international standards cited, the alleged victim had the right to the separation from her position being consistent with the only other acceptable option under those standards, i.e. a procedure in which the duty to present reasons, the right of defense, and the freedom from ex post facto laws were respected, insofar as it should have been a formal disciplinary procedure. 70. From the facts proven it is clear that due to the nature of the act by which the alleged victim was separated, she did not have a procedure with the minimal guarantees that arise from the right of defense and the freedom from ex post facto laws. 71. By virtue of the foregoing reasons, the IACHR considers that the State violated Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), and 9 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, to the detriment of Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia. B. The rights to judicial protection 41 and judicial guarantees 1. The lack of judicial protection 72. The IACHR recalls that the State is under a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to persons who allege that they are victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which should be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process (Article 8(1)). Effective recourse requires not only that it be provided for by law, but that it must be genuinely suitable to establish whether there has been a violation of human rights and provide as necessary to remedy it. 42 On evaluating the effectiveness of remedies one must examine whether the decisions in judicial proceedings have contributed effectively to putting an end to a situation violative of rights, and ensuring the non41 Article 25(1) of the Convention stipulates: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 42I/A Court HR, Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 125; I/A Court HR, Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; I/A Court HR, Case of the “Five Pensioners.” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136. 12