C. Political rights97 100. Article 23.1 c) establishes the right of judges to access public roles “under equality conditions.” The Court interpreted this article, indicating that when the judges’ permanence in their roles is arbitrarily affected, this constitutes a violation of the right to judicial independence, included in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, together with the right to access to and permanence in a public role under general equality conditions, established in Article 23.1 c).”98 101. The Commission estimates that the indicated standard is applicable to prosecutors, in the light of what was indicated in this report regarding the judges’ strengthened stability safeguards are also applicable to and shall protect prosecutors, in order to insure the independence in their roles’ fulfillment. 102. Just as it was established in previous paragraphs, in the present case, it is stated that the alleged victims were dismissed from their roles during an arbitrary proceeding, in which different violations of due process and the lawfulness principle were committed in the terms described throughout this report on merits, so in observance of the indicated criterion in the previous paragraph, the Commission considers that the State also violated Article 23.1 c) of the American Convention to the detriment of the petitioners. 103. By virtue of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State violated Article 23.1 c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 of this document, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 104. Based on the findings of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating the rights to appeal against a judgment, the lawfulness principle, and the right to legal protection, established in Articles 8.1, 8.2 b), 8.2 c), 8.2 h) 9, 23.1 c), and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of this document, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. 105. Based on the analysis and conclusions of this report, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THE STATE OF PERU TO: 1. Reinstate the victims in a position similar to the one they had, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and a standing equivalent to the one they would have today if they had not been dismissed. If it is not the victims’ will or there are objective reasons to impede his reinstatement, the State shall pay a compensation for that reason, which is apart from the reparations relative to pecuniary and moral damages included in recommendation number two. 2. Integrally make up for the consequences of the violations established in this report, including both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 3. Adopt the necessary non-recurrence measures to prevent similar facts from happening in the future. Particularly, insure the application of due process regulations, in the framework of assessment and ratification proceedings for judges and prosecutors, stipulating legislative measures, and of another kind, which are necessary to insure that the proceedings referred to comply with the standards described in this report. Particularly, the State shall carry out legislative and practice changes necessary to: i) Insure that the Article 23 of the American Convention establishes that: 1. All citizens shall have the following rights and opportunities: (...) c. To have access to, in general equality conditions, the public functions of their country. 2. The law can regulate the enforcement of rights and opportunities referred to in the previous paragraph, particularly for reasons regarding age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil or mental capacity, or conviction, by a competent judge in criminal action. 98 IACHR, Report No. 72/17, Case 13,019. Merits. Eduardo Rico. Argentina. July 5, 2017, para. 124. IAHR Court. Case López Lone and others vs. Honduras. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 192. 97 19