the economic, social and cultural rights, expressly prescribes the use of the system of individual petition in Article 19(6) for the rights to work and education. Consequently, in those cases, it is not necessary to make any effort to argue this, because the Court’s competence results from the text of the treaty. 14. In addition, it should be borne in mind that Part II of the Convention indicates in its Article 44 that: “Any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.” Meanwhile, Article 48 indicates that: “[w]hen the Commission receives a petition or communication alleging violation of any of the rights protected by this Convention, it shall proceed as follows … .” Similarly, Article 62(3) of the Convention indicates that: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it …” (underlining added). 15. The analysis of the preceding articles reveals that: (1) the civil, political, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights may be submitted to the consideration of both organs of protection; (2) the Commission and the IACtHR can have competence over the cases lodged in this regard; (3) no distinction is made between civil, political, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights as regards their protection, and (4) to claim that the inter-American organs of protection can only examine the civil and political rights would be contrary to the notions of universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelationship of the human rights, and entail a fragmentation of the international protection of the individual that would be directly detrimental to human dignity, which is the basis and purpose of human rights 16. In the case of the removal of Sr. Casa Nina, it is argued that there was a failure to provide an objective resolutive condition prior to his appointment to office establishing the termination of his appointment as a provisional prosecutor. Thus, the Court understood " that Mr. Casa Nina occupied the post without the security of tenure, 6 that is without an essential safeguard to ensure his independence” (paragraph 86). It should be indicated that over and above the provisional nature of the post, the State had the duty to ensure objective criteria for the termination of the provisional appointment in order to guarantee independence in the exercise of the adversarial function. 17. Thus, by a harmonious interpretation of the inter-American instruments considering the interdependence and indivisibility of the civil and political rights on the one hand, and the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights on the other, the Court is able to rule on the violations of one or the other. Therefore, the same fact based on act or omission may simultaneously signify the violation of a civil and political right and of an economic, social, cultural or environmental right. 18. As can be seen from the third operative paragraph the judgment: “The State is responsible for the violation of judicial guarantees, the right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality and the right to work recognized in Articles 8(1), 23(1)(c) and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument.” 19. I agree with this paragraph inasmuch as it reveals that there was a joint and The witness Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez stated that “one of the rights of prosecutors is permanence in the service until they are seventy (70) years of age, pursuant to the Peruvian Constitution; however, in the case of the non-career provisional prosecutor this benefit cannot be required, because their permanence depends on the decision of the service, that is, the Prosecutor General, because due to ‘needs for the service’ he/she may terminate his ‘designation.’” Cf. Statement made by Rita Arleny Figueroa Vásquez (evidence file, volume VI, affidavits, folio 1243). 6 4