12. In interpreting and applying the Convention, the Court is, more than anything, a regional court of human rights and its perspective is such that it must be able to understand the general panorama. It is, therefore, necessary to approach these violations from the viewpoint of the coexistence of the various rights of the victims, which are indivisible and justiciable, per se, by the Court. Access to inter-American justice in this case, just as in others already heard by the Court, is going to be a key to the access of all rights. I note that the metaphor of the key does not mean that we are faced with a viewpoint that directly restricts the right to work (or any other ESCER), but rather that it concerns a simultaneous justiciability due to the interrelationship among rights. I repeat that we are not dealing with the thesis of connectivity, but rather simultaneity. Therefore, Article 19(6) of the Protocol of San Salvador cannot be considered an obstacle for the Court to consider the violation of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights different than those established in that article, since by applying the principle pro persona (Art. 29 (c) and (d)) of the Convention), it is not reasonable to argue that there are human rights that do not contemplate their protection in the inter-American system by means of the mechanism of individual petitions. 13. That is why I underscore the majority decision that, through the principle iura novit curia, declared a violation of Article 23(1)(c) by considering that the dismissal from employment of 184 victims did not abide by the rules of due process, which arbitrarily affected their continuance in their positions and constituted a violation of their political rights. This perspective, in my opinion, reflects the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights by demonstrating that the dismissal from their positions implied a violation both of the right to work stability and the right to access and remain in public functions, under general conditions of equality, which are inalienable in circumstances such as in this case. III. THE INFRINGEMENT OF POLITICAL RIGHTS IN THE DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL 14. This judgment deals with an issue that has been heard by the Court on several occasions and that is fundamental in maintaining the rule of law in the region. I refer to the guarantee established in Article 23(1)(c) of access to public service, under conditions of equality. As the judgment recognizes, the Court ‘‘has interpreted that the guarantee of protection covers both the access and the continuance in equal conditions and non-discrimination with regard to the suspension and dismissal procedures,” 6 which “indicates that the procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal of public officers must be objective and reasonable, that is, they must respect the applicable guarantees of due process.’’ 7 15. On different occasions, the Court has ruled on the procedures of the dismissal of public officials, specifically regarding the guarantee of stability or continuance in the position. 8 In this specific case, the Court held that the State unduly affected the rights of the alleged victims to remain in their positions, under conditions of equality, in violation of the right established in Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 16. A dismissal involves the right to due process, to access to justice, to political rights and to the right to work. It is not possible to understand the violations in isolation since their division does not reflect the joint violation that exists in this case, regardless of whether it concerns civil and political rights or economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. 6 Cf. 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 Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 85. 7 Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 108 and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 85. 8 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138 and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 160. 4