the rights that are alleged to have been violated. Thus, the Court will not declare a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. C. Conclusion 118. In view of the above considerations, the Court finds that the 184 alleged victims listed in Annex 1 of this judgment were all congressional employees who were dismissed arbitrarily. The Court finds that the dismissals were an infringement of work stability, which is a component of the right to work and of which they were holders. Therefore, the State violated Article 26 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights contained in Article 1(1) thereof. VIII-3 POLITICAL RIGHTS IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS96 119. Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention establishes the right to have access, under general conditions of equality, to public service. The Court has interpreted that access under conditions of equality would be an insufficient guarantee if it were not accompanied by the effective protection of continuance in the position,97 which means that the procedures of appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal of public officials must be objective and reasonable; in other words, they must respect the guarantees of due process.98 120. The Court has repeatedly ruled on this right in relation to the procedures used to remove public officials and has held that it is related to the guarantee of stability or irremovability in the position.99 121. In any case, the Court notes that a literal reading of the guarantees contained in Article 23(1)(c) are applicable to all those who exercise public functions. Therefore, when the continuance of persons in the exercise of those functions is arbitrarily affected, their political rights are not recognized.100 122. In view of the above and in application of the principle iura novit curia, the Court finds that, as is evident in this case, the dismissal of the 184 persons listed in Annex 1 of this judgment did not adhere to the guarantees of due process, which arbitrarily affected their continuance in their positions. 123. Consequently, the Court rules that the State improperly affected the rights of the alleged victims to continue in their positions, under conditions of equality, in violation of the right set out in Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 96 Article 23 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. Cr. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 138 and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. vs. Peru, supra, para. 159. 97 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 Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 159. 98 99 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138 and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 135. 100 Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 109. 33