118. The Commission considered that the right to judicial independence enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention was violated in conjunction with the right of access and tenure under general conditions of equality to a public office established in Article 23(1)(c), since the alleged victims were removed from their position through an arbitrary process in which violations of both due process and the principle of legality were committed. The Commission concluded that the State violated Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. 119. Regarding Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, the representatives considered that when the dismissal was carried out through a procedure that violated Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the Convention, the State violated the human right to access to a public office under conditions of equality, provided for in article 23(1)(c). Therefore, the dismissal was arbitrary, since the disciplinary process failed to comply with judicial guarantees, the principle of legality and the right to judicial protection. 120. Regarding Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, the representatives argued that the inability to access new positions in the judiciary under equal conditions violated Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention. They argued that the non-ratification eliminated the legitimate expectation of promotion in the public profession of judge and denied continued and future access to public positions in the Judiciary, under conditions of equality. This situation gave rise to discriminatory treatment, he was never informed of the reasons for the non-ratification, depriving the alleged victim of economic income, which represented his personal and family support. 121. The State argued that in this case it has been established that the conditions of equality of access to public office were met, at the end of the completion of the alleged victims’ position, which was carried out through a ratification process that is duly regulated in Peruvian regulations, whose constitutional purposes have been repeatedly specified by the Constitutional Court (the highest interpreter of the Constitution). In such circumstances, the State did not violate Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the alleged victims. A. Considerations of the Court 122. The Court recalls that, in this case, the removal of two judges and two prosecutors from their positions is being examined as a result of an evaluation and ratification process carried out by the National Council of the Judiciary. For this reason, it will proceed to analyze: (1) the specific guarantees to safeguard the judicial independence of the judges and their applicability to prosecutors due to the nature of the duties they undertake; (2) duty of substantiation; (3) the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have the time and adequate means to prepare the defense, and (4) political rights. B.1. The specific guarantees to safeguard the judicial independence of judges and their applicability to prosecutors due to the nature of the duties they undertake 123. This Court has established that the judges have specific guarantees due to the necessary independence of the Judiciary, which has been understood as essential for the exercise of their duties. In this sense, this Court has affirmed that one of the main objectives of the separation of public powers is the guarantee of judicial independence. 112 Similarly, the Court has indicated that the guarantees of the stability and tenure of judges derives from judicial independence and are 112 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 73, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 86. 32