119. The victim then filed an appeal in which he reiterated the argument of the violation of the rights to work, due process and “not to be removed from office.”120 The Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho confirmed the appealed ruling on the grounds that the presumed victim sought to allege “rights that correspond[ed] to career prosecutors” when the appellant had occupied “an appointment of trust”; that is, “a temporary post.”121 120. Mr. Casa Nina lodged an appeal before the Constitutional Court repeating his previous arguments, and adding that the Prosecutor General’s decision lacked a statement of reasons and he had not been able “to be heard or to know the charges against him.”122 The First Chamber of the Constitutional Court ruled declaring the complaint unsubstantiated because the victim, in light of the provisional, interim or transitory nature of his appointment, could not claim “the protection of rights that do not correspond to the person who has not been appointed pursuant to the provisions of articles 150 and 154 of the Constitution.”123 121. The foregoing reveals that the different jurisdictional organs that heard the actions and remedies filed by Mr. Casa Nina rejected the issues raised based on two specific reasons: (i) the provisional nature of the victim’s appointment, which determined that he was unable to claim the protection of rights that only corresponded to career prosecutors, and (ii) the nonpunitive nature of the decision issued, which made the guarantees argued by the victim inapplicable. 122. As has been asserted in this judgment, the provisional nature of the appointment of prosecutors does not equal their discretionary removal; to the contrary, the safeguard of the independence of such agents of justice requires, precisely, a certain stability and permanence in office, until the resolutive condition that ends the designation is verified (supra para. 81). 123. Therefore, in this specific case, the courts that heard the actions filed by the victim did not address his specific claim regarding his right to stability in office given his condition as a provisional prosecutor and, thus, they did not provide effective protection in response to the claim due to the violation caused. 124. Consequently, the judicial remedies filed by Mr. Casa Nina to protect his rights (supra paras. 118, 119 and 120) were ineffective, because the different judicial authorities reiterated the argument that, owing to the provisional nature of his appointment, he did not enjoy any type of stability, which is contrary to the guarantees that prosecutors should enjoy, even when their appointment is provisional. 125. Consequently, the Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Julio Casa Nina. IX REPARATIONS Cf. Judgment delivered by the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho on July 11, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 8 to the Merits Report, folios 29 and 30). 120 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho on July 11, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 8 to the Merits Report, folios 29 and 30). 121 Cf. Judgment delivered by the First Chamber of the Constitutional Court on November 14, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 9 to the Merits Report, folios 29 and 30). 122 Cf. Judgment delivered by the First Chamber of the Constitutional Court on November 14, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 9 to the Merits Report, folios 29 and 30). 123 34