- 77 Trujillo it indicated that “access, under equal conditions would constitute an insufficient guarantee if
it were not accompanied by the effective protection of tenure in the post held.”407
236. Regarding the protection granted by Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention,408 in the
cases of Apitz Barbera et al. and Reverón Trujillo, this Court clarified that Article 23(1)(c) does not
establish the right to have access to public service, but rather to do so “under general conditions of
equality.” This means that respect for and the guarantee of this right is complied with when “the
criteria and procedures for the appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal are reasonable
and objective” and that “those concerned are not subject to discrimination”409 in the exercise of this
right. In this regard, the Court has indicated that equal opportunities in access and tenure ensures
freedom from any political interference or pressure.410
237. The Human Rights Committee has considered, in cases of the arbitrary dismissal of judges,411
that, if the basic requirements of due process are not respected, there is a violation of this right
established in Article 14412 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (corresponding
to Article 8 of the American Convention), together with the right to have access under equal
conditions to the public service of the country recognized in Article 25(c)413 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (corresponding to Article 23(1)(c) of the American
Convention).414
238. As a result of the disciplinary procedure to which they were subjected, three of the presumed
victims were dismissed and removed from the Judiciary. The Court considers that these dismissals
constituted arbitrary measures in view of the circumstances under which the presumed victims
were sanctioned and the violations of due process verified in the disciplinary proceedings in this
407
Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138, and Cf. Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et
al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 195.
408
The relevant part of Article 23(1) establishes that: “[e]very citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities:
[…] (c) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.”
409
Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 206, and Case of
the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 194.
410
Cf. Case of Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra, para. 135; and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v.
Ecuador, supra, para. 194.
411
In the case of Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, the Committee concluded that the “dismissal of a judge in violation
of article 25 (c) of the Covenant, may amount to a violation of this guarantee, read in conjunction with article 14, paragraph 1
providing for the independence of the judiciary.” Human Rights Committee. Communication No. 1376/2005, Soratha
Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, July 24, 2008. CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005, para. 7.3.
412
Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes that: “All persons shall be equal
before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations
in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals,
public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the
parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where
publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall
be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial
disputes or the guardianship of children.”
413
Article 25(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes that: “Every citizen shall have the
right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
[…] (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.”
414
The Human Rights Committee concluded that the “dismissal procedure […] did not respect the requirements of basic
procedural fairness and failed to ensure that the author benefited from the necessary guarantees to which he was entitled in
his capacity as a judge, thus constituting an attack on the independence of the judiciary. For this reason the Committee
concludes that the author's rights under article 25 (c) in conjunction with article 14, paragraph 1, have been violated”. Human
Rights Committee. Communication No. 1376/2005, Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, 2July 4, 2008.
CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005, para. 7.2.