discriminatory reasoning.98 Second, they must analyze more rigorously whether the right to work of people with disabilities could have been affected by discriminatory acts committed by authorities or third parties.99 Regarding this point, the Court considers that the authorities handling these remedies must analyze whether it has been sufficiently demonstrated that different treatment for a person with a disability is justified, with special consideration to their situation of vulnerability.100 B.3. Analysis of the specific case 75. Pursuant to the above paragraphs, and in view of the state’s full acknowledgment of its responsibility, it falls to the Court to analyze the state’s conduct with respect to compliance with its obligations to respect the rights to equal protection and work, as well as the prohibition of discrimination, as regard’s Mr. Guevara’s participation in the competitive hiring process for permanent position 010179 of Miscellaneous Worker 1 in the Ministry of Finance, and regarding the termination of his employment in an interim position after he was not selected through that process. 76. The Court recalls that on June 4, 2001, Mr. Guevara was hired by the Ministry of Finance on an interim basis as a Miscellaneous Worker 1. In 2003, Mr. Guevara participated in competitive hiring process 01-02, seeking permanent appointment to that position. On March 6, 2003, the Human Resources Technical Unit sent the list of candidates for the position, on which Mr. Guevara had received the highest score among the candidates. In a document dated June 13, 2003, the Head of Maintenance stated to the General Coordinator of the Procurement and General Services Technical Unit that Mr. Guevara’s work in the “Miscellaneous 1” position “is not satisfactory” and asked for the “selection of a functional person to the position.” He added that “due to his problems of retardation and emotional blockage that he suffers, (information provided by his mother), I do not consider him to be qualified for the position. If the intention is to help him, there are several ways to do so.” 77. In a document of that same date, the general coordinator of the Procurement and General Services Technical Unit forwarded the letter sent by the head of maintenance to the general coordinator of the Human Resources Technical Unit, adding that “the behavior of Mr. Luis Fernando has had a negative impact on his future employment, and his attitudes may even affect his personal safety in view of the type of functions that would be performed. It is therefore suggested that his selection be reconsidered.” Later, the senior officer and administrative and financial director of the Ministry of Finance informed Mr. Guevara that he was not selected in the competitive hiring process in question, and therefore his interim appointment would end on June 16, 2003. In several appeals, Mr. Guevara alleged acts of discrimination against him based on his intellectual Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Atala Riffo and girls v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 237, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 2, 2021. Series C No. 441, para. 159. 98 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, paras. 181, 191, and 221. In this regard, see Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico, direct amparo appeal number 3708/2016, of May 2017, pgs. 28 and 29; and Constitutional Court of Ecuador, ruling 258-15 of August 12, 2015, pg. 20. 99 Cf. Supreme Court of the Argentine Nation, Terruli, Jorge Miguel v. González, Manuel Enrique et al. on mortgage foreclosure, 12.22.2015. 100 25