DECIDES, Unanimously: 1. To reject the preliminary objection relating to the fourth instance, pursuant to paragraphs 20 and 21 of this judgment. By six votes to one: 2. To reject the preliminary objection regarding the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to examine arguments concerning the right to work, pursuant to paragraphs 26 and 27 of this judgment. Dissenting Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi. DECLARES, By six votes to one that: 3. The State is responsible for the violation of judicial guarantees, the right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality and the right to work recognized in Articles 8(1), 23(1)(c) and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Julio Casa Nina, pursuant to paragraphs 84 to 110 and 113 of this judgment. Dissenting Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi and partially dissenting Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. By six votes to one that: 4. The State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection guaranteed in Article 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Julio Casa Nina, pursuant to paragraphs 116 to 125 of this judgment. Dissenting Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi. AND ESTABLISHES: By six votes to one that: 5. This judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation. Dissenting Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi. By six votes to one that: 6. The State shall make the publications indicated in paragraph 133 of this judgment. Dissenting Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi. By six votes to one that: 43