132. The Court notes that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its General Comment No. 18 on the right to work, affirmed the obligation of States "to guarantee to individuals their right to work freely chosen or accepted, in particular the right not to be unjustly deprived of work."108 The Committee also established that States have an obligation to respect this right, which implies that they should "refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of that right."109 Furthermore, the Committee has indicated that "[a]ny person or group who is a victim of a violation of the right to work should have access to appropriate judicial or other remedies at the national level110 and has urged judges and other members of law enforcement authorities to pay greater attention to violations of the right to work in the exercise of their functions.111 133. In this regard, the Court has maintained that "the analysis by the competent authority of a judicial remedy - which contests constitutional rights such as job stability and the right to due process - cannot be reduced to a mere formality and omit the arguments of the parties, as it must examine their reasons and address them according to the parameters established by the American Convention."112 134. The Court has also specified that job security does not imply an unrestricted permanence in the job or position; rather, it has indicated that this right must be respected, among other measures, by granting protection to the worker so that, if he or she is dismissed, this dismissal is not arbitrary but is carried out with justification. This means that the employer must provide sufficient grounds for imposing 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.113 Likewise, the Court has indicated in the case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela that the State fails to fulfill its obligation to guarantee the right to work and, consequently, job stability when it does not protect its state officials from arbitrary terminations from their employment.114 135. In this case, the Court concluded that the procedure through which the dismissal sanction was imposed on Mr. Mina Cuero violated the rights to prior and detailed communication of the charges, to sufficient time and means for the preparation of the defense, to a reasoned decision, and to the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, a violation of the right to appeal the judgment, the right to remain in the position under equal conditions, and the right to effective judicial protection was declared. (supra paras. 91, 111, and 124), resulting from the arbitrary dismissal of Mr. Mina Cuero from his position as a police officer. By filing the remedy of amparo through a written submission on December 15, 2000, the alleged victim stated, inter alia, an allegation regarding his right to job stability (supra para. 127). As indicated by the Court, the judicial authorities that reviewed Mr. Mina Cuero's successive claims did not conduct a specific examination of the allegations made by him regarding the violation of his fundamental rights, including the right to work. (supra para. 124). Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the arbitrary separation of Mr. Mina Cuero from his position as a police officer and the lack of access to justice and effective judicial 108 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. General comment No. 18. The right to work (art. 6), E/C.12/GC/18 of November 24, 2005, para. 4. 109 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. General comment No. 18, supra, para. 22. Cf. Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 60. 110 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. General comment No. 18, supra, para. 48. 111 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. General comment No. 18, supra, para. 50. 112 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 184, andCase of Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 177. 113 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 150, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 88.. 114 Cf. Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 221, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 131.