simultaneous violation of the rights: to special protection for access to and permanence in public office and independence of the prosecutor established in Article 23(1) of the Convention, and the right to work, because the independence guaranteed by job stability, pursuant to Article 26 of the Convention, was not respected or ensured. Moreover, this right is also recognized by Article XIV of the American Declaration which establishes that: “Every person who works has the right to receive such remuneration as will, in proportion to his capacity and skill, assure him a standard of living suitable for himself and for his family.” In my opinion, in the instant case, this joint and indivisible violation of rights provides the grounds for the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 20. This is so because I consider that the violated civil and political rights are indivisible from the right to work, because the violations of the right recognized in Article 23(1) of the American Convention are directly related and constitute facts that are inseparable from the violation of the right to work. On this basis, I will now examine the importance of the protection of participation in public service, its relationship to the human right to work and the independence of prosecutors under the democratic rule of law. III. Protection of participation in public service, its relationship to the human right to work and the independence of prosecutors under the democratic rule of law 21. As the judgment indicates, the protection of participation in public service in relation to the human right to work and the protection of the independence of prosecutors is essential under the democratic rule of law. Consequently, in order to examine the arguments of the Court, I will present my thoughts on some concepts related to this issue linking the protection of the universal system of human rights to the regional system. 22. When addressing this matter, the Court started by clarifying the issue of recognition of the specific guarantees for judges and prosecutors. To this end, it based itself on three premises: (i) the State’s duty to ensure the provision of judicial services; (ii) the fundamental need that those who intervene in the provision of such services are tenured officials, with preestablished causes for removal or dismissal, and (iii) in exceptional cases in which the designation of provisional officials is required, the appointment, permanence and termination of the exercise of the function is subject to predetermined conditions” (paragraph 69). 23. Therefore, in this opinion, I underscore that the Court has indicated the need that, with regard to violations of human rights and, in general, in criminal cases, “States must ensure an independent and objective investigation,” 7 and “has emphasized that the authorities responsible for the investigation must enjoy de jure and de facto independence, which requires not only hierarchical or institutional independence, but also real independence’” (paragraph 69).8 Added to which, “in order to safeguard the independence and objectivity of prosecutors Cf. inter alia, Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 108, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 150.These requirements, among others, are referred to in the following instruments: the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, Article 12; Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 1985, Article 8; United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2003, Article 11(2), and International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 2006, Article 12. See also: Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary or Summary Executions, Recommended by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in its Resolution 1989/65, of May 24, 1989, Principle 9; Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the annex to its Resolution 55/89 of December 4, 2000, Principle 2, and Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, Application of Article 2 by the States Parties, CAT/C/GC/2, January 24, 2008, para. 26. 7 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 95; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations 8 5