92. This Court, ruling previously on cases of arbitrary dismissal of judges98 and prosecutors,99 has held that this right is part of the guarantee of stability or irremovability from office.100 It can be considered respected and guaranteed when the criteria and procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal are reasonable and objective and when individuals are not subject to discrimination in the exercise of the right.101 The Court has held, in this regard, that equal opportunity in access and tenure ensures freedom from any political interference or pressure.102 93. Mr. Aguinaga Aillón was removed from office on the TSE as a consequence of the proceedings held against him. The Court finds that this dismissal was arbitrary because it was conducted by a body that was not authorized to do so, via a procedure that was not legally established. This arbitrary dismissal therefore undercut Mr. Aguinaga Aillón’s right to remain in office under conditions of equality, in violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention. 4. Right to work 94. The Court notes that neither the Commission nor the representatives expressly argued violation of Article 26 of the Convention. Based on the principle of iura novit curia,103 however, the Court will rule on violation of the right to work, particularly the right to job stability, in injury of of Mr. Aguinaga Aillón. 95. It finds that, for the purposes of its examination of the right to job stability, it will need to consider whether these violations occurred simultaneously with the other violations discussed above.104 The Court has understood that civil and political rights, as well as economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (hereinafter ESCERs), are indivisible, and the recognition and enjoyment thereof must inevitably be guided by the principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelationship.105 This means that the two categories of rights must be understood integrally and jointly as human rights, without any specific hierarchy, and be enforceable in all cases before competent authorities.106 98 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138 and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 160. 99 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 116; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 97; Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 109; Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 160; Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 96. 100 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, paras. 95 and 96; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 69; Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 109, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 160. 101 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138 and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 160. Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 73, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 94. 102 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 163 and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 99. 103 104 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 143, and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 100. Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 141 and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 100. 105 106 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 100. 30