grounds, the Commission finds that each member of the jury provided 476 answers and that the decision, adding up the total number questions and answers on the grounds for each member of the jury, contained a total of 4,284 questions and answers. The Commission also notes that the jury did not carry out a material consolidation exercise of the answers provided by each member. 123. In light of the considerations presented in this section, the IACHR finds that the Argentine State is responsible for violation of Articles 8(1) and 9 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo Rico. E. Right to participate in government (Article 23 of the American Convention)100 124. Article 23(1)(c) recognizes the right of judges to have access to public service under “under general conditions of equality.” The Court has interpreted that article to mean that the arbitrary impairment of the tenure of judges violates the right to judicial independence enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention in conjunction with the right to have tenured access under general conditions of equality, to the public service of one’s country, has established in Article 23(1)(c).101 125. It has been established in this case that Eduardo Rico was removed from office in an arbitrary proceeding in which various violations were committed of due process and of the principle of legality in the manner described in the course of this report on merits. In such circumstances, and consistent with the interpretation contained in the preceding paragraph, the Commission considers that the State also violated Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that instrument to Eduardo Rico's detriment. F. Right to judicial protection (Article 25 of the American Convention)102 126. In addition, under Article 25 of the Convention, States are required to provide a suitable and effective remedy for acts that violate their rights, whether those established in the Convention or in the law.103 127. In the instant case, the Commission notes that after the judgment was issued in which he was dismissed and declared ineligible for service in the judiciary, Mr. Rico filed an application for nullity, which was denied by the Supreme Court with the argument that the organ that issued the decision was of a political nature and its decisions escaped “judicial oversight.” He also filed a special federal appeal alleging a series of due process violations. However, the Supreme Court of Justice denied it, saying that it was not properly founded in accordance to law and that the arguments presented by the alleged victim merely demonstrated his disagreement with the tribunal's findings. 128. In the application for reconsideration that he then filed with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation against the preceding decision, the Supreme Court said that decisions in trials of magistrates at the provincial level “are justiciable” when one of the parties invokes a violation of due process, but that in this 100The pertinent portions of Article 23 of the American Convention provide: 1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: (...) c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. 101 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, par. 192. 102Article 25(1) of the Convention states: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 103 I/A Court H.R., Castillo Páez Case v. Peru. Merits, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, par. 82; Case of ClaudeReyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, par. 131, and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 183, par. 78.