consider that, not only is the justiciability of the right to work not legally viable in the proceedings before the IACtHR, but even that, based on the criteria developed in case law, the violation of Article 26 has not been proved in this case. ii) The ambivalent interpretation of Article 23 in relation to the removal from office of public officials 10. In addition to the criteria that led me to accord my partial vote to the third operative paragraph, I find it relevant to refer to some problematic elements of the analysis of the merits, starting with the interpretation of the meaning and scope of Article 23 of the Convention. In the instant case, the Court found that the violation of the right of access to public office under general conditions of equality had been violated, considering that the decision that terminated the appointment of Mr. Casa Nina was arbitrary, since it did not respond to the permitted causes in order to ensure his independence in the office of provisional prosecutor. Even though I agree with this reasoning, I should note that the Court overlooked a very important debate that the case again brought to the table related not to Article 23(1)(c) but rather to Article 23(2). 11. The instant case elaborated on a jurisprudential position based on previous decisions relating to judicial officials 17 in relation to the criteria for removal from office, in which the issue of the literal interpretation of the limitations to political rights contemplated in Article 23 was not addressed. The Court indicated, “[…] this specific guarantee for prosecutors, applied in the same way as the protection mechanisms recognized for judges results in the following: (i) that removal from office is exclusively due to the permitted causes, either by a proceeding that complies with judicial guarantees or because the mandate has ended; (ii) that prosecutors can only be dismissed because of serious disciplinary offenses or incompetence, and (iii) that any process against prosecutors must be settled using fair, objective and impartial proceedings, pursuant to the Constitution or the law, because the discretionary removal of prosecutors gives rise to the objective doubt about their effective possibility of exercising their functions without fear of reprisals.”18 12. To the contrary, in the recent decision in the case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, the Court reiterated the position taken in the case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela19 according to which “[…] Article 23(2) of the American Convention makes clear that this instrument does not allow any administrative body to apply a sanction involving a restriction (for example, imposing a 17 Cf. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, and Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 383. 18 Cf. Case of Casa Nina vs. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 80. 19 Cf. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 107.