equality is an insufficient guarantee if it is not accompanied by the effective protection of tenure in the office achieved, 151 which indicates that the procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal of public officials must be objective and reasonable, that is, they must respect the applicable guarantees of due process. 152 160. This Court has repeatedly ruled on this right in relation to processes of dismissal of judges 153 and prosecutors 154 and has considered that it is related to the guarantee of stability or tenure in office. 155 Thus, the respect and guarantee of this right is fulfilled when the criteria and procedures for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal of judges and prosecutors are reasonable and objective, and exercise of said procedures does not discriminate against individuals. 156 161. Having established the foregoing, the Court finds that, as evidenced in this case, the removal of Messrs. Cuya Lavy, Valenzuela Cerna, Díaz Alvarado, and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse ignored the guarantees of due process, which arbitrarily affected their tenure in their positions as judges and prosecutors, respectively. Consequently, this Court considers that the State unduly affected their right to remain in office under conditions of equality, in violation of the right enshrined in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same Convention, to the detriment of Messrs. Cuya Lavy, Valenzuela Cerna, Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse. C. Conclusion 162. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State failed in its duty to substantiate the non-ratification decisions enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. Similarly, the Court considers that, by failing to protect the privacy of Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna and Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 11(1) of the Convention, in relation to article 1(1) of the same instrument. 163. Furthermore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense, contained in Articles 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same Convention, to the detriment of Messrs. Cuya, Díaz, Valenzuela, and Ms. Rodríguez. 164. Finally, this Court concludes that the State unduly affected the right to remain in office under conditions of equality, in violation of the right enshrined in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same Convention, to the detriment of Messrs. Cuya Lavy, Valenzuela Cerna, Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse. Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 108. Cf. Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 108. 153 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138; Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 93, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 109. 154 Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 115; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 97, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 109. 155 It should be remembered that in the case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, this Court concluded that the guarantee of stability and tenure of judges, aimed at safeguarding their independence, is applicable to prosecutors due to the nature of the functions they perform. Cf. Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 95 and 96. See also, Case of Casa Nina v. Perú, supra, para. 69 and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 109. 156 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra, para. 138, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 109. 151 152 41