the above legal provisions must be analyzed in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Aemrican Convention. 35. The petitioners also allege that the State violated their political rights, guaranteed under Article 23(1)(c); they contend that they were unlawfully and abruptly removed from the office to which they were appointed for four years. The Commission’s understanding is that the allegations are not a question of the right to have access to public service, as framed in the American Convention, but rather to the right to remain in office.12 The Inter-American Commission deems that the petitioners’ allegations in this regard do not tend to establish a possible violation of Article 23 of the American Convention. 36. Finally, the petitioners are alleging violation of Article 24, because they contend that the justices were the victims of discrimination based on their political opinions, since two justices who were members of the party in power were confirmed in their post.13 Apart from the simple claim made by the petitioners, there is nothing in the case file that would support, in the merits phase, a finding of discrimination. None of the information provided would support a finding, in the merits phase, that there was discrimination. 37. Based on the preceding paragraphs, the Inter-American Commission finds that the allegations concern supposed violations of the rights to due process and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, and the obligationserga omnes established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Furthermore, the facts alleged do not tend to establish possible violations of the rights protected under Articles 23 or 24 of the American Convention, so that the respective allegations cannot be taken up during the merits phase. V. CONCLUSIONS 38. The Inter-American Commission concludes that the present case is admissible and that it is competent to examine the petition lodged by the petitioners with respect to the alleged violation of Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. It also concludes that the facts alleged by the petitioners, if true, would not constitute possible violations of Articles 23 or 24 of the American Convention. 39. Based on these arguments of fact and of law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare this petition admissible with regard to the rights recognized in Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 2. To declare the allegations made with respect to Articles 23 and 24 of the American Convention inadmissible. 3. To invite the parties to consider the possibility of instituting a procedure to arrive at a friendly settlement of the case and to make itself available to the parties to that end. 4. To notify the State and the petitioner of this decision. 5. To publish this decision and include it in the Commission’s Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. 12 See, in this regard, I/A Court H.R., Constitutional Court Case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paragraph 103. 13 Namely, justices René de la Torre and Milton Burbano. 8