security. Subsequently, this right was further developed in the cases of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru 18 and San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. 19 Regarding content of this right, the Court has pointed out that “job security does not consist of an unrestricted permanence in the post, but rather of respecting this right, among other measures, by granting due guarantees of protection to the worker so that, if he or she is dismissed this is done with justification. This means that the employer must provide sufficient reasons for imposing such a sanction with due guarantees, and that the worker may appeal this decision before the domestic authorities, who must verify that the justification given is not arbitrary or unlawful.” 20 10. The same interpretation was applied in the case of Casa Nina et al. v. Peru, 21 in which the Court stated that justice operators must enjoy job security guarantees as an essential condition for their independence in the effective performance of their duties. Likewise, in the case of provisional prosecutors, safeguarding their independence and objectivity entails granting them a certain level of stability and continuity in the position, since provisional status is not equivalent to free removal. The Inter-American Court understood that, as an expression of the position occupied by justice operators, they have the right to job security and, therefore, the States must respect and guarantee this right. 22 11. On the other hand, in the case of Spoltore v. Argentina, 23 the Court recognized the facet of access to justice in the search for compensation arising from occupational accidents in the workplace. Thus, in this case, the Inter-American Court emphasized that both General Comment No. 18 and General Comment No. 23 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights establish that the right of access to justice forms part of the right to work and to working conditions that ensure the worker’s health. In this regard, the Committee noted in General Comment No. 23 that “workers affected by a preventable occupational accident or occupational disease should have a right to a remedy, such as courts, to resolve disputes, including access to appropriate grievance mechanisms. In particular, States parties should ensure that workers suffering from an accident or disease, and where relevant, their dependents receive adequate compensation, including for costs of treatment, loss of earnings and other costs as well as access to rehabilitation services.” 24 Case of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, operative paragraph 7. 18 Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, operative paragraph 4. 19 20 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 150. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419. 21 22 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, paras. 81 and 108. Case of Spoltore v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 9, 2020. Series C No. 404. 23 24 Cf. Case of Spoltore v. Argentina, supra, para. 96. 4