38 according to its own assessment.”166 138. According to the State’s arguments, Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention does not include the protection of the right to remain in the exercise of public service. In this sense, the Court points out that in the case of Apitz Barbera et al., this Tribunal stated that Article 23(1)(c) does not establish the right to access a public position, but to do so in “general conditions of equality.” This means that the respect and guarantee of this right are fulfilled when “the criteria and procedures for the appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal [are] reasonable and objective” and when “the people are not object of discrimination” in the exercise of this right. 167 Likewise, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted that the guarantee of protection covers both the access and the continuance in equal conditions and non-discrimination with regard to the suspension and dismissal procedures. 168 As observed, the access in equal conditions would constitute an insufficient guarantee if it were not accompanied by the effective protection of the continuance in what is accessed. 139. The Court has established that the right to have access to public service in general conditions of equality protects the access to a direct form of participation in the design, implementation, development, and execution of the state’s political guidelines through public service. Therefore, it is necessary that the State generate the optimal conditions and mechanisms in order for those political rights to be exercised effectively, respecting the principle of equality and non-discrimination.169 140. In the present case, the SPA stated that “[t]he administrative act through which the competent body […] dismissed [Mrs. Reverón Trujillo] was not lawful” (supra para. 53). However, the SPA’s decision stated that [i]n other circumstances [that] Chamber could, with the elements present in the records of the case file, order the reinstatement of the judge” (supra para. 55). From the judgment of the SPA it can be inferred that among those “other circumstances” we can mention bearing the condition of titular judge. Likewise, both the jurisprudence of the SPA as well as that of the Constitutional Chamber consider that provisional judges are of free appointment and removal and that “the right to stability” is reserved for career judges (supra para. 101 and 102). In synthesis, the Court observes that a titular judge, under circumstances of an annulled dismissal similar to that of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo could have been reinstated. On the contrary, in the present case, since it is a provisional judge, under the same factual assumptions, the reinstatement was not ordered. 141. This difference in the treatment of between titular judges that enjoy a full guarantee of tenure and provisional ones who do not have any protection by that guarantee within the context of continuance that corresponds to them, does not respond to a reasonable criterion (supra para. 138) pursuant to the Convention 166 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 10, para. 29 and Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 27. 167 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (First Court of Administrative Disputes) v. Venezuela, supra note 58, para. 206. See also United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Observation No. 25: The participation in Public Matters and the Right to Vote, CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 7, July 12, 1996, para. 23. 168 Cf. Pastukhov v. Belarus (814/1998), ICCPR, A/58/40 vol. II (5 August 2003) 69 (CCPR/C/78/D/814/1998) at paras. 7(3) and 9; Adrien Mundyo Buyso, Thomas Osthudi Wongodi, René Sibu Matubuka et al. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (933/2000), ICCPR, A/58/40 vol. II (31 July 2003) 224 (CCPR/C/78/D/933/2000) at para 5(2). 169 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 195.