55 their names for the selection process to accede to other positions,220 which was not the case of the other judges of the First Court. However, the Court must assess whether this circumstance effectively constituted a violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention. 206. This article does not establish the right to accede to public office, but the right to do so “under general conditions of equality.” Consequently, compliance with the obligation to ensure and respect this right means that “the criteria and processes for appointment, promotion, suspension, and dismissal must be objective and reasonable,”221 and “that persons do not suffer discrimination in the exercise” of this right.222 In the instant case, the criteria that prevented access to the Judiciary for the three judges complied with these standards, because the prohibition of reincorporation into public office of those who have been dismissed is an objective and reasonable condition whose ultimate objective is to guarantee the correct exercise of the judicial task. In addition, it cannot, in itself, be considered discriminatory by allowing the reincorporation of those who have retired. Given that the Court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a disciplinary sanction should have been imposed in the instant case and, in such event, upon whom (supra para. 200), it is also unable to analyze the consequences that such imposition would have engendered. 207. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no discrimination as regards access to other positions in the Judiciary, either as established in the applicable Venezuelan law or in the act that executed it. Consequently, the facts set out in the case sub judice should not be considered a violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention. 3. Discrimination upon enforcing procedural law 208. The representative also alleged that discrimination occurred regarding the enforcement of “procedural law” since an “appeal for annulment filed by Luisa Estella Morales a week after the one filed by former Judges Apitz and Rocha” was “decided within less than one year,” while “the other has not been decided though four years and three months have elapsed.” The State has not provided a response to this argument. 209. In this regard, the Court considers that the arguments of the representative should not be analyzed under the provisions of Article 24 of the Convention but pursuant to the general non-discrimination obligation contained in Article 1(1) thereof. The difference between the two articles lies in that the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) refers to the State’s duty to respect and guarantee “nondiscrimination” in the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the American Convention, while Article 24 protects the right to “equal treatment before the law.” In other words, if the State discriminates upon the enforcement of conventional rights containing no separate non-discrimination clause a violation of Article 1(1) and the substantial right involved would arise. If, on the contrary, discrimination refers to 220 Cf. testimony of Mr. Apitz, supra note 137; testimony of Mr. Rocha, supra note 144, and testimony of Mrs. Ruggeri, supra note 33, p. 745. 221 Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 25, Article 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service, CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add. 7, July 12, 1996, para. 23. 222 23. Cf. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 25, supra note 221, para.