international corpus iuris106 and the domestic corpus iuris107 establish the said right. In the case of Peru, article 22 of the Constitution enshrines this right, indicating the following: “[w]ork is a duty and a right. It is the basis for social well-being and a means of selfrealization.” 106. As regards its content and for the effects of the instant case, it is worth pointing out that in its General Comment No. 18 on the right to work, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights indicated that this right “should not be understood as an absolute and unconditional right to obtain employment,” but that it also “implies the right not to be unfairly deprived of employment.”108 107. The Court has indicated that job stability does not consist in an unrestricted permanence in the post; but rather that this right must be respected, among other measures, by granting due guarantees of protection to the worker so that, if he or she is dismissed this is justified. This means that the employer must provide satisfactory reasons to impose this sanction with the due guarantees and that the worker may appeal the decision before the domestic authorities, who must verify that the justification given is not arbitrary or unlawful.109 The Court has also indicated, in the case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, that the State fails to comply with its obligation to ensure the right to work, and consequently job stability, when it does not protect state officials from arbitrary dismissals.110 108. As this judgment has reiterated, since prosecutors perform the functions of agents of justice, they need to enjoy guarantees of job stability as a basic condition for their independence in order to perform their functions satisfactorily (supra para. 78). Moreover, in the case of provisional prosecutors, the protection of their independence and objectivity requires that they be granted a certain type of stability and permanence in office, because the temporary nature of their appointment is not equivalent to discretionary removal (supra para. 81). The Court understands that, due to the functions they perform, prosecutors have the right to job stability and, therefore, State should respect and ensure this right. 109. In the instant case, the Court has concluded that the decision that terminated the appointment of Mr. Casa Nina was arbitrary because it did not respond to any of the causes permitted to guarantee his independence in the office of provisional prosecutor (supra para. 91). This also constitutes a violation of the right to job stability, as part of the right to work that, as an employee of the Public Prosecution Service of the Peruvian State, he had a right to during the time that he exercised the function. For example: Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Articles 7 and 8 of the Social Charter of the Americas; Articles 6 and 7 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention in the Area of Economic, social and Cultural Rights; Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Article 32(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and also Article 1 of the European Social Charter and Article 15 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 106 The constitutional provisions of the States Parties to the American Convention that refer in any way to the protection of the right to work include: Argentina (art. 14 bis), Bolivia (arts. 46 and 48), Brazil (art. 6), Colombia (art. 25), Costa Rica (art. 56), Chile (art. 19), Dominican Republic (art. 62), Ecuador (art. 33), El Salvador (arts. 37 and 38), Guatemala (art. 101), Haiti (art. 35), Honduras (arts. 127 and 129), Mexico (art. 123), Nicaragua (arts. 57 and 80), Panama (art. 64), Paraguay (art. 86), Peru (art. 22), Suriname (art. 4), Uruguay (art. 36) and Venezuela (art. 87). 107 UN. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 18: The right to work, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/18, November 24, 2005, para 6. 108 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 150, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 220. 109 110 Cf. Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 221. 31