CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE RICARDO C. PÉREZ MANRIQUE CASE OF CASA NINA V. PERU JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 24, 2020 (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) I. Introduction 1. The judgment declares the violation of Articles 8(1), 23(1)(c) and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”), among others, owing to the violation of judicial guarantees, the right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality and the right to work. The case relates to a series of violations that took place in the context of the procedure that culminated with the removal of Julio Casa Nina from the post of Provisional Deputy Prosecutor of the Second Criminal Prosecution Office of the province of Huamanga, Ayacucho, Peru. 2. In its judgment, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the IACtHR” or “the Court”) rejected the preliminary objections relating to the fourth instance and to the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to examine arguments concerning the right to work, and concluded that the Republic of Peru was responsible for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees, the right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality and the right to work, in relation to the obligations to respect and ensure those rights. 3. In this opinion, I concur with the decisions taken in the judgment and submit this opinion in order to: (i) analyze the way in which I consider that the IACtHR should address cases that involve violations of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, based on the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelationship of all human rights as grounds for their justiciability, and (ii) examine the protection of participation in public service, its relationship with the human right to work, and the independence of prosecutors under the democratic rule of law. II. The issue of the justiciability of the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. Jurisdiction of the IACtHR a) Objection of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae 4. The State indicated that the IACtHR is unable to assume jurisdiction with regard to the presumed violation of a right or freedom that is not included in the protection system of the Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador. Therefore, it submitted that the Court was not competent to rule on the violation of the right to work under Article 26 of the Convention because the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights cannot be submitted to the system of individual petitions (paragraph 22 of the judgment). For its part, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) and the representative asked the Court to reject the objection because the rights should be understood integrally and are enforceable in all cases (paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment). 5. Ultimately, the Court rejected the preliminary objection and reaffirmed “its competence to examine and decide disputes relating to Article 26 of the American Convention as an integral part of the rights listed in its text, regarding which Article 1(1) establishes obligations of respect and guarantee” (paragraph 26 of the judgment).