(Article 25), the right to education (Articles 27, 28 and 30) and cultural rights (Article 29). 3. The wording of the aforementioned Article 21 was also proposed by the Draft Convention on Human Rights presented by the Government of Chile, 10 a document on which the Convention was also based. However, in its Draft Convention on Human Rights, the version proposed by Uruguay was different, resembling the wording contemplated by the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 2: Chapter II: Substitute article on economic, social and cultural rights [...] Article 24. 1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take steps, individually and in cooperation with others and to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to progressively achieving the full realization, by legislative measures as well as by other means, of the rights recognized in this chapter. 2. The States Parties to this Convention recognize that, in the exercise by the State of the rights guaranteed under this chapter, the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only to the extent consistent with the nature of those rights and solely for the purpose of serving the general interest or promoting the general welfare of a democratic society. 11 4. Subsequently, the Second Special Inter-American Conference of 1965 instructed the OAS Council to update and complete the "Draft Convention on Human Rights" prepared by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1959, taking into account the drafts presented by Chile and Uruguay and considering the criteria of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The OAS Council was also instructed to submit the draft to the governments for their comments and to convene an Inter-American Specialized Conference to analyze the draft and the comments submitted and to approve the Convention. 5. The OAS Council requested the opinion of the Inter-American Commission, which, in turn, issued an opinion that it transmitted to the OAS Council. 12 In its second opinion, and regarding the discussion on economic, social, and cultural rights, the Inter-American Commission stated that: [...] the Commission belives that, initially, the Convention should contemplate only those rights and freedoms in regard to which the American states are now in a position to extend international protection which goes beyond the limits of their domestic competence. In examining the chapter on economic, social and cultural rights in the IACJ draft and in those presented by the Uruguayan and Chilean governments, the Commission had serious doubts as to the appropriateness of including those rights in the present convention, since, in the light of the experience of the council of Europe and the United Nations, it considered that those rights, because of their nature, should be covered by a special system of international protection. 13 To the above, the Inter-American Commission added: However, the Commission believes that, in view of the importance of economic, social, and cultural rights, the future Inter-American Convention on Human Rights should contain provisions in which the States Parties to the Convention recognize the need to incorporate gradually into their domestic legislation such measures as are required 10 Cf. Draft Convention on Human Rights presented by the Government of Chile to the Second Special Inter-American Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 1965, doc. 35, in: Inter-American Yearbook of Human Rights, 1968, OAS, Washington D.C., 1973, pp. 285. 11 Cf. Draft Convention on Human Rights presented by the Government of Uruguay to the Second Special Inter-American Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 1965, doc. 49, in: Inter-American Yearbook of Human Rights, 1968, OAS, Washington D.C., 1973, pp. 303. 12 The first part of the report was sent on November 4, 1966 and the second part on April 10, 1967. 13 Cf. Opinion of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding the Draft Convention on Human Rights approved by the Inter-American Council of Jurists, Part Two, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.16/doc.8, in: Inter-American Yearbook of Human Rights, 1968, OAS, Washington D.C., 1973, pp. 334. 4