disability. In those appeals, he presented additional information indicating he had performed the job adequately and indicating a lack of negative reports.101 78. The Court finds that the references to Mr. Guevara contained in communication 044-2003 from the head of maintenance addressed to the general coordinator of the Procurement and General Services Technical Unit and in the latter's communication addressed to the general coordinator of the Human Resources Technical Unit constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the reason Mr. Guevara was not selected for the position of Miscellaneous Worker 1 was his status as a person with an intellectual disability.102 This conclusion, acknowledged by the state, derives from the content of the letters, which clearly alludes to Mr. Guevara’s disability as the reason to not hire him, with further proof being the elements leading to the conclusion that the victim met the requirements to hold the position he sought. This includes the fact that he had the highest score in competitive hiring process 010179, that he had two years of experience in the position, that there were no reports of poor performance in the exercise of his duties, and that, on the contrary, his effectiveness at the job was recognized.103 79. In this regard, the Court notes that during the selection process for competitive hiring process 010179, Mr. Guevara was treated differently based on his intellectual disability. There was no objective and reasonable justification for this difference in treatment and it was the main reason that Mr. Guevara was not selected for the permanent position of Miscellaneous Worker 1. This amounted to active direct discrimination with regard to access to work, and was therefore a violation of Mr. Guevara’s right to work. 80. Regarding this, the Court underscores that the decision to not appoint a person based on their disability could be reasonable and admissible should the disability be incompatible with the essential functions to be performed. However, a lack of adequate justification when deciding not to select a person based on their disability gives rise to the presumption that the measure is discriminatory nature. Such a decision requires more rigorous argumentation to establish objective grounds for making it. In this sense, when the administrative authorities involved in the decision to select the winner of the competitive hiring process for position 010179 decided not to select Mr. Guevara because of his disability, in the exercise of "discretionary authorities," as indicated by the senior official and general administrative and financial director of the Ministry of Finance in his response to the appeal for reversal, the state failed to comply with its duty to provide sufficient justification for the decision. 81. Additionally, Court recalls that the Autonomous Regulations of the Ministry of Finance indicated that the labor relationship of interim employees concluded once a candidate was selected from the short list to hold the position permanently. Mr. Guevara was thus dismissed from his interim position as Miscellaneous Worker 1 at the Ministry of Finance as a result of not having been selected in competitive hiring process 01-02. As indicated above, the victim was discriminated against during that competitive hiring process based on his intellectual disability, leading to him not being selected for the permanent position. The Court therefore finds that the dismissal of Mr. Guevara was not Cf. Amparo appeal filed by Mr. Guevara Díaz before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court on August 5, 2003 (evidence file, folio 965). 101 102 Cf. Expert opinion of Silvia Judith Quan Chang (evidence file, audiovisual material folder, minute 15:00). Cf. Amparo appeal filed by Mr. Guevara Díaz before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court on August 5, 2003 (evidence file, folio 965). 103 26