access to public service under equal conditions, as stated in Article 23(1) (c), and the right to work under Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). Making use of principle iura novit curia, the Court pointed out that the dismissal of Mr. Mina Cuero arbitrarily affected his tenure as a police officer and, as a consequence, disregarded the obligation to ensure job stability.26 Furthermore, the Court stated that the right to work was violated because the necessary guarantees were not provided to ensure that the dismissal was not arbitrary and was carried out with justifiable reasons. To provide further context, as stated in " [...] Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela [...] the State fails to fulfill its obligation to guarantee the right to work and, consequently, job stability when it does not protect its state officials from arbitrary dismissals."27 So, it is evident that it is the same factual and legal argumentation but with a different normative basis, on one hand, Article 23(1) (c), and on the other hand, Article 26 of the Convention. 5. I believe it would have been appropriate to refer exclusively to Article 23. As the judgment correctly points out, Article 23(1) (c) of the American Convention on Human Rights states that "1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: [...] (c) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country." The Court is right on this occasion to include the analysis of this article and declare the violation of the right to access public service under equal conditions, because it is evident that Mr. Mira Cuero was a public official as he held a position in the National Police. Indeed, as this Court has pointed out, as provided in General Comment 25 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee,28 does not only establish the right to access a public office, but also the right to do so under conditions of equality and to remain in employment. This implies the criteria and processes for appointment, promotion, suspension, and dismissal must be objective and reasonable, and must be respected and guaranteed, and that individuals must not be subject to discrimination in the course of such procedures.29 This was precisely the breached obligation in the case, as Mr. Mina Cuero was dismissed from his position without the fulfillment of a reasonable and objective procedure. 6. The above is not merely a nominal distinction, as I have stated in other separate opinions, using Article 26 of the Convention to declare the State's liability is legally unacceptable and affects the legitimacy of the decision. Therefore, determining Ecuador's liability solely based on Article 23(1) (c) of the American Convention on Human Rights would not only have provided a more precise response to Mr. Mina Cuero's factual situation and allowed the Court to advance its case law on the scope of this right in the American Convention, but it would have also avoided affecting the effectiveness of the decision due to the inconsistencies of the direct justiciability of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, once again, it is demonstrated that the use of this treaty provision serves the sole purpose of reaffirming a case law approach to ESCER, regardless of whether it is pertinent or necessary to ensure justice in the specific case. 26 Case of Mina Cuervo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Judgment of September 7, 2022, para. 110. 27 Case of Mina Cuervo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Judgment of September 7, 2022, para. 134. 28 Cf. United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 25, Article 25: The Right to Participate in Public Affairs and Voting Right, CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 7, July 12, 1996, para. 23. 29 Cfr Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 206 3