101. Second, in relation to the procedural activity of the interested party, the Court notes that Mrs. Moya Solís gave impetus to the process. In this regard, she submitted briefs in April 1987, February 1988, February 1995, and August 1996. Furthermore, there is no record in the casefile that she took actions that hindered advancement of the process, so the Court cannot find that Ms. Moya Solís' conduct contributed in any way to the delay. 102. Third, with regard to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court finds that they limited themselves to requesting a copy of the ratification file that they should have had before them at the time of ruling, without making any findings on the fact that said file was not forwarded. In this regard, the State argued that this occurred because Mrs. Moya Solís did not carry out any procedural activity between 1989 and 1995. In the Court's opinion, the processing of the appeal for amparo did not depend on the possible procedural impulse from the presumed victim, and therefore said argument is not accepted by this Court. On the contrary, the Court finds that the conduct of the judicial authorities did not follow guidelines for due diligence. 103. Finally, in relation to the damage caused to the person involved in the process, the Court finds that there are insufficient elements in the casefile to establish the damage caused to Mrs. Moya Solís due to the delay in processing the appeal. Having analyzed the preceding elements, the Court considers that the amparo appeal, whose overall duration exceeded 15 years, denied the guarantee of a reasonable timeframe. 104. In conclusion, the Court finds the State of Peru responsible for the violation of the right to a reasonable timeframe and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25, in relation to the duty of respect and guarantee contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Moya Solís. VII-3 POLITICAL RIGHTS 76 A. Allegations of the parties and the Commission 105. The Commission argued that all citizens should have equal access to public service in their country and the Court has interpreted that when the tenure of judges in office is arbitrarily affected, that right is violated, extending this interpretation to the job security of prosecutors. According to the Commission, in addition, when the tenure of public officers in their positions is arbitrarily affected, that right is violated. 106. The presumed victim alleged that the State violated her political rights, enshrined in Article 23(1)c) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 107. The State argued that Mrs. Moya Solís was not removed from her position in an arbitrary process. Instead, she assumed a position as a public servant under conditions of equal access. It pointed out that the ratification procedure applied to the Judicial clerks at the time of the events did not violate the rights of those evaluated. B. Considerations of the Court 108. Article 23(1)c) of the Convention establishes the right to equal access to public service. In this regard, this Court has interpreted that equal access is an insufficient guarantee if it is not 76 Article 23 of the American Convention. 28