accompanied by the effective protection of tenure in the position 77 , 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.78 109. This Court has repeatedly ruled on this right in relation to processes of dismissal of judges79 and prosecutors80 and has considered that it is related to the guarantee of stability or tenure in office. Thus, the respect and guarantee of this right is fulfilled when the criteria and procedures for the appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal of judges and prosecutors are reasonable and objective, and their exercise does not discriminate against individuals.81 In any case, the Court notes that the guarantees contained in Article 23(1)c) of the Convention are applicable, not only to those categories of officers, but to all those who perform public functions, in accordance with the literal wording of Article 23(1)c). For this reason, when the tenure of a person in the exercise of such functions is arbitrarily affected, their political rights are ignored. 110. In addition, equal opportunities of access and secure tenure in the position of judicial officer, as in the case of Mrs. Moya Solís, guarantees freedom from any interference or pressure.82 This is particularly relevant when taking into account that those who held the position of Judicial Clerks in Peru, on the date of the events, were in charge of presenting the appeals and briefs submitted by the parties to the judge, authorizing the procedural steps issued by the judge, notifying the decisions of the court, and keeping and protecting the files under their charge,83 among other relevant responsibilities for the correct administration of justice. 111. Pursuant to the foregoing, the Court finds that, as evidenced in the previous sections, Mrs. Moya Solís’ dismissal ignored the guarantees of due process, which arbitrarily affected her tenure in public office and, consequently, constitutes a violation of Article 23(1)c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. VIII REMEDIES 112. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to provide adequate reparation, and this provision includes a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on State responsibility.84 In addition, this Court has established that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the stated violations, the proven damages, as well as the measures requested to repair the Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 138, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 97. 77 Cf. Human Rights Committee. Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka (Communication No. 1376/2005), UN Doc. CCPR / C / 93 / D / 1376/2005, August 4, 2008, para. 7.1. 78 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 93. 79 80 97. 81 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 115, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 98. Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 72, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 98. 82 Cf. Article 233. Decree Law No. 14605 of July 25, 1963. Organic Law of the Judiciary (evidence file, folios 684 to 686). 83 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 126. 84 29