21. Another different, though complementary, level, is the international one. As an international court, the role of the Court at this level is to determine whether the State, whose responsibility is claimed, has violated one or more of the rights established in the Treaty. In light of the normative design thereof, and in accordance with Article 26, the Court is empowered to establish the international responsibility of the State if it has failed to comply with the obligations of progressive development and non-regression, not of the ESCER considered individually. 22. This assertion is in line with what has already been expressed in previous opinions, in that the correct doctrine that the Court should follow is, precisely, to consider the economic, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions of the rights recognized in the conventional rules, and to exercise its adjudicative jurisdiction by way of their relationship, when a relationship to this effect can indeed be established. 23. This approach affects the legal certainty that an international court should guarantee and the legitimacy of its decisions, since the argument provided simply ignores a rule that does not grant the Court jurisdiction to address potential violations of ESCER. 24. The reasoning of a court judgment should allow the reader to reproduce and understand the reasoning used by the Court to arrive at a specific decision. The determination to uphold the justiciability of an ESCER cannot be built on the basis of ignoring the jurisdictional rules set forth in the Treaty and its additional Protocol. 25. Unfortunately, and as Medina and David have expressed, "the position of the majority undermines the effectiveness not only of the Protocol of San Salvador but also of Article 26 itself," 58 a treaty provision that has a specific content that the Court can and must develop in the cases it is called upon to hear. 26. This should not lead to confusion between the normative repertoires available, on the one hand, to national courts and, on the other, to an international court such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. There is no rule in the Treaty that empowers it to declare an autonomous violation of the right to work. Patricia Pérez Goldberg Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary Cf. MEDINA and DAVID ”The American Convention on Human Rights” (2022:28). Translation provided by the author. 58 15