-23- B.2.d Right to remain in the post under general conditions of equality 93. Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention establishes the right to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. This Court has interpreted that access, under equal conditions would constitute an insufficient guarantee if it were not accompanied by the effective protection of tenure in the post held.129 94. In cases of arbitrary dismissal of judges, this Court has held that the guarantee of stability or tenure of the judge is related to the right to remain in public office.130 Respect for and the guarantee of this right is complied with when the criteria and procedures for the appointment, promotion, suspension, and dismissal are reasonable and objective, and that those concerned are not subject to discrimination in the exercise of this right. 131 In this regard, the Court has indicated that equal opportunities in access and tenure ensures freedom from any political interference or pressure.132 95. As a result of the procedure to which he was subjected, the alleged victim was removed from his position as a TSE judge. The Court considers that this dismissal constituted an arbitrary dismissal because it was carried out by an incompetent body and through a procedure that was not legally established. Therefore, this arbitrary dismissal unduly affected Mr. Colindres Schonenberg's right to remain in office under equal conditions, in violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention. B.2.e Inadequate domestic law 96. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention obliges the States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.133 Said duty implies the adoption of measures of two kinds: on the one hand, elimination of any norms and practices that in any way violate the guarantees provided under the Convention134; whether because they are unaware of those rights or freedoms or because they hinder their Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 138, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 235. 130 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 05, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 43, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 235. 131 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 05, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 206, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 236. 132 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 72, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 236. 133 Cf. Caso Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 04, 1991. Series C No. 12, para. 50, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 79. 134 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 03, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 111. 129