48 appropriate measures be taken and resources made available for the protection of the workers’ representatives. (supra, para. 126).216 149. In correlation to the above, it can be understood that, in the private sphere, the state obligation to protect the right to job security results, in principle, in the following duties: (a) to adopt the appropriate measures for the due regulation and monitoring 217 of this right; (b) to protect the workers against unjustified dismissal through its competent organs; (c) in case of unjustified dismissal, to rectify the situation (either by reinstatement or, if appropriate, by compensation and other social benefits established in domestic law). Consequently, (d) the State should provide effective grievance mechanisms in cases of unjustified dismissal, to ensure access to justice and the effective judicial protection of such rights (infra, paras. 174, 176 and 180). 150. It should be noted that job security does not consist in an unrestricted permanence in the post; but rather, to respect this right, among other measures, by granting due guarantees of protection to the worker so that, if he or she is dismissed this is with justification, which means that the employer must provide sufficient reasons to impose this sanction with the due guarantees, and that the worker may appeal this decision before the domestic authorities, who must verify that the justification given is not arbitrary or unlawful. 151. In this specific case, Mr. Lagos del Campo had been employed by the aforementioned company as a manual worker for approximately 13 years and, at the time of the facts, he was president of the Electoral Committee of the company’s Industrial Community and the delegate to CONACI. Based on statements made during an interview published in “La Razón” in the context of internal elections, Mr. Lagos del Campo was dismissed for having committed a serious verbal offense against his employer. He contested this decision before the competent organs, but it was ratified in second instance, considering that he had been dismissed for a justified reason. He appealed this decision before various domestic instances, without finding protection, particularly for his right to job security, alleging that the reasons for his dismissal were unjustified or unwarranted and that due process had been violated. That is to say, in light of the arbitrary dismissal by the company (supra, para. 132) the State failed to adopt adequate measures to protect the violation of the right to work by third parties. Thus, Mr. Lagos del Campo was not reinstated in his job and did not receive any compensation or the corresponding benefits. 152. Consequently, Mr. Lagos del Campo lost his job, the possibility of a retirement pension, and also the exercise of his rights as a workers’ representative. This also had an impact on his on union membership or participation in union activities, in so far as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements. Paragraph 6: (1) Where there are not sufficient relevant protective measures applicable to workers in general, specific measures should be taken to ensure effective protection of workers' representatives. (2) These might include such measures as the following: (a) detailed and precise definition of the reasons justifying termination of employment of workers' representatives; (b) a requirement of consultation with, an advisory opinion from, or agreement of an independent body, public or private, or a joint body, before the dismissal of a workers' representative becomes final; (c) a special recourse procedure open to workers' representatives who consider that their employment has been unjustifiably terminated, or that they have been subjected to an unfavourable change in their conditions of employment or to unfair treatment; (d) in respect of the unjustified termination of employment of workers' representatives, provision for an effective remedy which, unless this is contrary to basic principles of the law of the country concerned, should include the reinstatement of such representatives in their job, with payment of unpaid wages and with maintenance of their acquired rights; (e) provision for laying upon the employer, in the case of any alleged discriminatory dismissal or unfavourable change in the conditions of employment of a workers' representative, the burden of proving that such action was justified; (f) recognition of a priority to be given to workers' representatives with regard to their retention in employment in case of reduction of the workforce. Also, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Agenda 2030, which includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets to benefit people, the planet and prosperity. In particular, Goal 8 promotes sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. Targets 8.5 and 8.8 are addressed at protecting workers’ rights and promoting a safe and secure working environment. 216 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Serie C No. 149, para. 99; Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 133, and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2015, Serie C No. 309, para. 216. 217