employment.” 145 It has also indicated that “[v]iolations of the obligation to protect follow from the failure of States Parties to take all necessary measures to safeguard persons within their jurisdiction from infringements of the right to work by third parties,” which includes “the failure to protect workers against unlawful dismissal.” 146 131. It should be noted that job security does not entail an unrestricted permanence in the job; rather it implies respecting this right, among other measures, by granting due guarantees of protection to the worker so that, in case of dismissal, this is carried out with proper justification. This means that the employer must provide sufficient reasons for imposing this sanction with due guarantees, and that the worker may appeal this decision before the domestic authorities, who must ascertain that the justification given is not arbitrary or unlawful. 147 Likewise, in the case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, the Court considered that the State fails to meet its obligation to guarantee the right to work and, therefore, to job security, when it does not protect its government officials from arbitrary dismissal. 148 132. In the instant case, the 65 alleged victims were all employees of the Guatemalan Judiciary. This Court has already established that their dismissal violated the guarantee of the right to be heard and the right to be previously notified of the charges against them and to have adequate time and means to prepare their defense (supra para. 90). Furthermore, it found that the State violated the right to strike because it imposed numerous obstacles that prevented the strike from being carried out effectively, and that, in addition, in this specific case, it applied legislation that established disproportionate requirements for holding a strike (supra para. 127). In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the dismissal of the alleged victims also constituted a violation of job security, as part of the right to work to which they were entitled. 133. In accordance with the foregoing, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to work of the 65 alleged victims, recognized in Article 26 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 65 former employees of the Judiciary listed in the Single Annex. C. Conclusion 134. By virtue of the above considerations, this Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 16 and 26 of the Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, for having established arbitrary restrictions on the right to strike, freedom of association and the freedom to organize of the 65 former employees of the Judiciary listed in the Single Annex. Likewise, Guatemala is responsible for the violation of Article 26 of the Convention, in relation to the general obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, for not having ensured the right to work and job security of the 65 former employees of the Judiciary listed in the Single Annex. UN. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 18: Right to Work, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/18, November 24, 2005. 145 146 UN. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No18: Right to Work, supra. 147 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 150, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 107. 148 Cf. Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 221, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 107. 38