rights to be made by a competent authority pursuant to domestic law, in keeping with the guarantee of judicial independence that includes safeguarding stability and irremovability from office under the terms of Article 8(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 89. Having found that the body that carried out the process was not competent to do so, and proceeding as it has in other cases,95 the Court deems it unnecessary to examine other Article 8 guarantees. This obviates an analysis of the arguments submitted by the Commission and the representatives concerning the alleged violation of other judicial guarantees. As it stated in the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador case, the Court finds that, due to the type of damage caused to the separation of powers and the arbitrary nature of the action by the National Congress, there is no need to undertake a detailed analysis of the parties’ arguments regarding whether the dismissal decision was a punitive act, and therefore it will not examine other issues related to the possible scope of the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws (Article 9 of the Convention) in the instant case. 90. Nonetheless, and in view of Ecuador’s recognition of responsibility, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for violating the right to defense and the right of the accused to receive prior notification in detail of the charges against him, under Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in injury of Aguinaga Aillón. 3. Right to participate in government 91. Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention establishes the right to have access to a position in the public service, under general conditions of equality. The Court has held that access under conditions of equality is an insufficient guarantee if it is not accompanied by the effective protection of tenure in the position,96 which indicates that the procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal of public officers must be objective and reasonable, that is, they must respect the applicable guarantees of due process.97 95 The Court has held similarly, in cases involving the military criminal courts, that it does not need to examine additional arguments on independence, impartiality or other guarantees regarding a judge who has already been found to lack jurisdiction. Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220, para. 201; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 161; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 177; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 124, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 115; (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 181, and Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 91. 96 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138, and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 477, para. 95. 97 95. Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 108 and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 29