employment status. It observes in this regard that, as it concluded earlier, the Supreme Court, after examining the pleadings filed by the Applicant, concluded that he was a contracted staff and could not therefore be governed by the Law on the General Rules and Regulations of the Rwandan Civil Service. The Supreme Court therefore found that the prior notice was not applicable as alleged by the Applicant. 93. In the circumstances, this Court holds that the dismissal could not have been wrongful for the reason advanced by the Applicant. The Court therefore dismisses the allegation of wrongful dismissal. ii. Ilegality of dismissal without reinstatement or compensation 94. This Court notes that the Applicant alleges that his rights were violated because the High Court declared his dismissal unlawful without ordering his reinstatement or the payment of adequate compensation. 95. In this regard and in light of the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this Court considers that the right to work implies security of employment which requires that persons enjoy effective legal protection where the grounds raised to justify their dismissal are arbitrary or contrary to the law*?. The Court considers that, invariably, where these conditions necessarily gives rise to a right to compensation. the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice relied are not met, the dismissal This is the principle on which when it held that: in matters of termination of employment contract, ... early termination pronounced by one of the parties, without the agreement of the other, except for cases of serious fault, force majeure or hiring of the employee under fixed term contract, entitles the other party to damages...“ #See Lagos del Campo v. Peru, Application No. 12.795, Judgment of 31/8/2017 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) “Claude Akotegnon v. ECOWAS, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/APP/20/17 of 29/6/2018, § 42. 24