unconstitutionality action was designed to protect constitutional rights, in this case, the failure to consider all of the allegations presented by the appellant, especially regarding the alleged violations of due process, prevented the unconstitutionality action from being an effective remedy to protect the rights of the alleged victim. Therefore, it is concluded that the remedy of unconstitutionality, in the specific case, was not effective and, therefore, Article 25 (1) of the Convention was violated in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Alejandro Nissen Pessolani. VI-3 POLITICAL RIGHTS111 A. Motions by the parties and the Commission 92. The Commission recalled that, in the instant case, the alleged victim was removed from his position as a prosecutor in a proceeding in which, according to its arguments, "violations of both due process and the principle of legality were committed.” In such circumstances, the Commission concluded that the State also violated the right to equal access to public office by arbitrarily affecting administrators of justice remaining in their positions. 93. The representative claimed that, subsequent to his impeachment, in 2005, Mr. Nissen Pessolani entered the competition for the position of State Prosecutor General, but that despite having been shortlisted after an initial evaluation, his name was eliminated from the list of candidates. He argued that the media attributed this to his dismissal by the JEM and that although Mr. Nissen Pessolani asked the president of the Council of the Magistracy for explanations regarding his exclusion from the list of candidates, he never received an answer. 94. The State argued that the dismissal of Mr. Nissen Pessolani was not arbitrary, but was the result of a reliable finding of poor performance of his duties. It also claimed that Mr. Nissen Pessolani was subjected to a disciplinary process in which the rights of defense and due process were respected. Therefore, it considered that the political rights of the alleged victim were not violated. B. Considerations of the Court 95. Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention establishes the right to access public service under general conditions of equality. In this regard, this Court has interpreted that the access in equal conditions would constitute an insufficient guarantee if it were not accompanied by the effective protection of remaining in the position that had been achieved.112 This implies that procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal of public officers must be objective and reasonable, that is, they must respect the applicable guarantees of due process.113 111 Article 23 of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 138, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 107. 112 Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, para. 108, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 107. 113 29