the Court has not addressed the issue that Article 23 ACHR does not recognize differences between the political rights of public officials. 5 Thus, it is clear that the Court still does not comply with the argumentative burden required of it, expressing in its case law differences in the degree of protection of the rights of public officials due to their form of appointment, or any other criterion e.g. the nature of the functions they perform. 6 7. I consider, however, that the ambivalence that is evidenced in the Court's case law regarding the scope of Article 23(2) of the convention and the certainty of the hypotheses considered for the limitation of political rights, must be read reasonably. In this sense, it is my opinion that, implicitly, the sentence reiterates the position according to which judges’ and prosecutors’ removal from office as a form of limitation of political rights is within the convention even though it is not ordered by a judgment before a competent judge in criminal proceedings. Thus, it must continue to be understood that according to the interpretation of the Court itself, the Convention does not establish an absolute prohibition that prevents, in certain cases, disciplinary law from having effects on public officials’ tenure in office. 7. Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary Article 23. The Right to Participate in Government 1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of their country. 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. 6 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419. Concurring and partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. Para. 13 7 Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419. Concurring and partially dissenting opinion of Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto. Para. 14 5