Convention on the Law of Treaties, 26 changes the nature of the obligation of progressivity, 27 ignores the will of the States expressed in the Protocol of San Salvador, 28 and undermines the legitimacy of the Court, 29 just to mention a few arguments. However, my purpose on this occasion is to highlight the irrelevance of the analysis of Article 26 addressing a case that refers specifically to public officials, and that as a consequence could be addressed in sufficient depth on the basis of Article 23 of the Convention, thus reiterating the position already expressed in my partially dissenting opinion in the case Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. 30 4. In the case, in addition to substantiating the violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, which I fully share, the Court considered that there was a violation of the right to remain in public office under conditions of equality of Article 23(1)(c). Making use of the iura novit curia principle, the Court stated that the arbitrary removal of the Prosecutor from his position also constituted a violation of his right to job security. 31 5. In relation to the right to remain in office under equal conditions, the Court considered that "the removal of Mr. Nissen Pessolani from his position as Prosecutor through the trial by the JEM disregarded the guarantees of due process, which arbitrarily affected his remaining in the position of Prosecutor." 32 On the other hand, to substantiate the violation of the right to job security, the Court concluded that "the decision of the JEM to remove then prosecutor Nissen Pessolani was arbitrary, as it did not comply with the guarantees of due process, which also constituted a violation of the right to job security, as part of the right to work, which as a worker of the Public Ministry of Paraguay he was entitled to during the time he held his position." 33 To this effect, it is evident that it consists of the same factual and legal argumentation but with a different normative basis: on one hand, Article 23(1)(c), and on the other hand, Article 26 of the Convention. 6. I believe that, as was stated in my partially dissenting opinion in the case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, it would have been appropriate to refer exclusively to Article 23. As the judgment correctly points out, Article 23(1)(c) of the ACHR sets forth that "1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: [...] (c) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of their country." The Court was right 26 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 27 Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 28 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349. Concurring opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. Cf. Case of Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 29 30 Cf. Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2022. Series C No. 464. Partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. 31 Cf. Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 477, para. 99. Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 477, para. 97. 32 33 Cf. Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 477, para. 103. 3