necessary to protect the independence of this type of official, but also his right to work. 17. This is a position that lacks certainty. The determination of a specific term in the appointment resolution does not prevent stability in office depending on the discretionality of the appointing authority. The determination of a period of time, in most cases months (three months, six months or even a year), still leaves the renewal or termination of the employment relationship to the discretion of the appointing authority and cannot prevent the official from being exposed to external pressures or having his independence affected due to the lack of security about the renewal of the term. 18. I consider that we can truly speak of stability in office in the case of provisional officials if their permanence is exclusively subject to the holding of a competitive selection procedure or to the commission of a disciplinary or criminal offense. It cannot be argued that, based on precarious short-term contracts, job stability is protected as a component of the right to work, because the determination of a specific term does not ensure the continuity in office or avoid discretionality in the termination decision. iv) The scope of the concept of control of conventionality in relation to the obligation to amend provisions of domestic law and the concept of an effective judicial remedy 19. In general, it could be said that the control of conventionality, as a mechanism of the inter-American system of human rights, consists in: (i) the obligation not to apply domestic laws that are contrary to the Convention, and (ii) interpreting the Convention and domestic law together to establish which would be the most favorable to the protection of the human rights of those concerned. The elements of this control have been extensively developed in the Court’s case law and are consolidated on the basis of its judicial practice and that of the domestic authorities. 20. In the instant case, the Court analyzed the control of conventionality from two angles. On the one hand, it considered that domestic law needed to be amended in relation to the guarantee of irremovability of prosecutors in Peru; on the other hand, it considered that the right to an effective judicial remedy had been violated because the domestic authorities had not applied the inter-American standard. a. Article 2 of the Convention: obligation to amend provisions of domestic law 21. First, it has to be pointed out that the Court considered that the absence of a term or condition in both the appointment and the removal of Mr. Casa Nina was justified under the provisions of domestic law. Consequently, it criticized not only the authorities’ interpretation of domestic law, but also the failure to enact norms leading to the effective observance of such guarantees. Lastly, it ordered the State to make the necessary amendments to its laws to adapt them to the criteria of the Convention.