Miscellaneous Worker 1 was his status as a person with an intellectual disability.”22 Toward this, it took into account not only the official letters issued by the employer referring to his mental condition but also that Mr. Guevara Díaz “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.”23 5. Additionally, as specifically regards the right to work, the Court found 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 the victim’s right to work.”24 Additionally, it found that “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,”25 and therefore, his right to remain at his job had been violated. It is my view that these statements aimed at identifying an autonomous violation of the right to work should have been analyzed in relation to Article 23(1)(c) of the ACHR, which establishes the right to access to public service under conditions of equality. 6. Article 23(1)(c) of the ACHR establishes that “1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: [...] c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. It is my view that in this case, which addresses a position at the Ministry of Finance that should have been filled through a competitive process in accordance with national law, the right to access the public service under conditions of equality was violated. Effectively, as this Court has indicated, pursuant to General Observation 25 of the UN Human Rights Committee,26 Article 23(1)(c) does not enshrine a right to access a public position but a right to do so under conditions of equality. This means respecting and guaranteeing that the criteria and procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension, and dismissal are reasonable and objective and that persons are not subject to discrimination during these procedures.27 This was precisely the obligatory content violated in the case, as the officials of the Ministry of Finance did not use objective and rational criteria in filling the position; on the contrary, they used a prohibited category—the condition of disability—to limit Mr. Guevara Díaz’s right to access to the position. 7. This is not a simply theoretical distinction. As I have indicated in other separate opinions, using Article 26 of the Convention to declare State responsibility is legally inadequate and impacts the legitimacy of the decision. Thus, not only would determining Costa Rica’s responsibility based on Article 23(1)(c) read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the ACHR have been more precise to Mr. Guevara Díaz’s factual Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Para. 78. 22 23 Ibid. Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Para. 79. 24 25 Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Para. 81. Cf. United Nations. Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 25, The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25), CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 7, July 12, 1996, para. 23. 26 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 206 27 3