71. Likewise, the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil has found that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was incorporated into the Brazilian legal system as a constitutional norm. In this regard, it found a law excluding maritime workers from the public policy for inclusion of persons with disabilities to be unconstitutional. Based on article 27 of the CRPD, said Court established that physical disability does not, in and of itself, disqualify a worker from working on boats, as there is no legal or conventional requirement of full physical capability for any and all maritime activity. It likewise found that leaving out maritime jobs when calculating the number of vacant positions filled with persons with disabilities was both unreasonable and disproportionate, constituting a discriminatory legal differentiation and an arbitrary obstacle to work by reducing the availability of positions open to this category persons.94 72. Additionally, in reviewing the decision of an appeals court upholding the firing of a person with disability, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador found that beyond a mere review of the legality of and authority to unilaterally terminate temporary service contracts, a constitutional analysis was both necessary and obligatory. This analysis required reviewing whether or not the entity guaranteed the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, and whether it fully considered all the regulatory instruments applying to the matter that were enacted to make this group of citizens a priority and provide them with special protection in order to guarantee them true equality in the workplace.95 73. In view of the foregoing, this Court notes that, in the public sector, states have an enhanced responsibility to respect the right to work of persons with disabilities. This obligation translates, first of all, into a prohibition on any act of discrimination based on disability with respect to the exercise of their labor rights, particularly with respect to the selection and hiring of the employee, as well as their permanence in the position or promotion, and workplace conditions. Second, deriving from the mandate of real or material equality, it translates into an obligation to take affirmative action to incorporate persons with disability into the labor force, action that must be aimed at progressively removing the barriers that prevent them from fully exercising their labor rights. In this regard, states are required to adopt measures to ensure that persons with disabilities have effective and equal access to competitive public hiring processes through vocational training and education, as well as by making special adjustments to the evaluation mechanisms so as to enable them to participate on an equal footing and make it possible to employ persons with disabilities in the public sector. 74. This Court additionally finds that the enhanced obligation to protect the right to work of persons with disabilities entails specific obligations for authorities hearing complaints alleging acts of discrimination in the workplace.96 This obligation requires rigorous diligence in guaranteeing and respecting the rights of persons with disabilities in the context of administrative and judicial remedies analyzing violations of the right to work.97 First, therefore, the authorities must refrain from basing their decisions on 94 95 Cf. Supreme Federal Court of Brazil, Direct Constitutional Challenge No. 5,760 of September 13, 2019. Cf. Constitutional Court of Ecuador, ruling 258-15 of August 12, 2015, pg. 20. Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Furlán and Relatives v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 201 96 Cf. Case of Furlán and Relatives v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, paras. 201 and 202. Similarly, see Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Nation, Terruli, Jorge Miguel v. González, Manuel Enrique et al. on mortgage foreclosure, judgment of December 22, 2015, considering paragraphs 7 and 13, and Brasilia Regulations Regarding Access to Justice for Vulnerable People, adopted during the 16th Ibero-American Judicial Summit held in Brasilia in March 2008, rule 25. 97 24