36 perceived. * * * 129. The representatives have also stated that the alleged situation of a generalized provisional nature and the consideration of the judges as officials of a free appointment and removal “has implied hundreds of summary dismissals, many of which obey clear political and economical nuances.” 130. In this sense, the Tribunal points out that the facts of the present case do not prove that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo was dismissed in a summary manner due to political and economic interests.158 Therefore, the Tribunal considers that it is not appropriate to analyze those arguments. VII ARTICLE 23(1)(C) (RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT)159 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) 131. The representatives indicated that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo “suffered an unequal treatment with regard to her right to enter and remain in her public duties, since upon being denied the full reinstatement of her juridical situation that was violated, upon dismissing her reinstatement into the position and payment of the benefits she did not perceive, she was prevented from participating in the ‘regularization’ process that could have granted her the ‘entitlement’.” 132. The State mentioned that the representatives “altered the content of Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention by including in it an alleged right of continuance in equal conditions, in the public service of a country, which in itself determines the inadmissibility of the alleged violation.” It added that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo “was empowered to participate in the competitive tenders summoned within the framework of the [PET] and she did not participate in them because of her own decision not to.” 133. To this last argument of the state the representatives responded, inter alia, that the publications made within the framework of the PET did not establish that the judges who had been dismissed or that were part of a group different to those summoned could participate in that process. 134. The Inter-American Commission did not argue the violation of Article 23 in the present case. Additionally, even though in Admissibility Report No. 60/06 that body considered that the case of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo characterized a possible violation of 158 In a similar sense the Tribunal has previously stated that “[t]he object of the Court's contentious jurisdiction is not to review national legislations in their abstract conception, but to resolve specific cases where it may be alleged that an act of a State carried out against certain individuals is contrary to the Convention.” (Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 50, highlighted text not from the original). 159 Article 23(1) establishes, in what is relevant, that: Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: […] c) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.