Prosecution Office of Huamanga; in other words, a temporary post that, as such, does not give rise to rights other than those inherent in his post […].40 D.4. Appeal lodged before the Constitutional Court 56. Mr. Casa Nina lodged an appeal before the Constitutional Court and, in a judgment of November 14, 2005, its First Chamber declared “the complaint groundless.” The Chamber considered, inter alia: 3. […] it is important to note, on the one hand, that article 27 of Legislative Decree 052, Organic Law of the Public Prosecution Service, establishes that if the incumbent’s leave of absence is for more than 60 days, and when “[…] if it is necessary to replace a Provincial Prosecutor, the respective Deputy will be called on to fill the post provisionally.” This provision accepts the existence of provisional prosecutors – as is the case of the appellant – in order to cover vacancies in the said entity; and, on the other hand, that article 5 of Law 27362, which annuls the homologation of the provisional and tenured magistrates of the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service, specifies that provisional magistrates may only exercise jurisdictional work while their temporary posting lasts. 5. […] this Chamber understands that substitute or provisional appointments, as such, constitute a situation that does not give rise to rights other than those inherent in the post “provisionally” occupied by a person who has not been appointed on a permanent basis. This being the case, the protection of rights cannot be sought before a constitutional court, when the person is not entitled to such rights because he has not been appointed pursuant to the provisions of articles 150 and 154 of the Constitution, but instead a function of a transitory nature on an interim basis.41 VIII MERITS 57. This case concerns the alleged violation of various rights in relation to the proceedings that culminated in the removal of Julio Casa Nina from the post of Provisional Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Criminal Prosecution Office of the province of Huamanga, Ayacucho, Peru. The Court will now proceed to make the corresponding analysis as follows: (a) judicial guarantees, political rights and right to work, in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure rights and to adopt domestic legal provisions, and alleged violations of the principle of legality, protection of honor and dignity, and equality before the law, and (b) right to judicial protection, in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure rights. VIII.1 JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, POLITICAL RIGHTS AND RIGHT TO WORK, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS,42 AND ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY, THE PROTECTION OF HONOR AND DIGNITY, AND EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW43 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties A.1. Enhanced stability for prosecutors 58. The Commission indicated that the principle of enhanced stability for judges was also applicable to prosecutors, “inasmuch as they play a complementary role to that of a judge in Cf. Judgment delivered by the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho on July 11, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 8 to the Merits Report, folios 29 and 30). 40 Cf. Judgment delivered by the First Chamber of the Constitutional Court on November 14, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 9 to the Merits Report, folios 32 and 33). 41 42 Articles 8, 23 and 26 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. 43 Articles 9, 11 and 24 of the American Convention. 17