of a preliminary nature.7 If these assertions cannot be considered without prior analysis of the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed through a preliminary objection.8 Accordingly, irrespective of whether an assertion is made by the State in its briefs, if, upon analyzing the argument, it is determined that it constitutes a preliminary objection, that is, it must object to the admissibility of the application or the Court’s competence to hear the case or any of its aspects, it must therefore be settled as such.9 7. Accordingly, and having regard to the diverse nature of the arguments presented by the State with the aim of arguing that the Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the direct justiciability of the right to social security based on the interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention, I consider that the Court should have decided to treat this matter as a preliminary objection. It is important to note that in the case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, the Court had already analyzed arguments of this nature through a preliminary objection related to ratione materiae.10 8. In the instant case, no violation of the Protocol of San Salvador has been alleged; rather, the representatives’ petition focuses on the application of Article 26 of the Convention in relation to the right to social security. In this regard, it was up to the Court to determine whether it was competent to analyze, directly, the alleged violation of the right to social security pursuant to Article 26 of the Convention. 9. In the cases of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru and Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, this Court settled claims related to the violation of Article 26 of the Convention. Although no violation of that article was declared in either of those cases, and the Court did not conduct an extensive analysis of the State’s obligation of progressive development and the duty of non-retrogression, the Court’s considerations focused on that obligation, concluding that “retrogression is actionable when economic, social and cultural rights are involved.”11 The Court did not undertake a study regarding the violation of an economic, social, cultural or environmental right in its individual dimension, that is, applicable to a specific case; rather, its assessment was based on the collective dimension of the right.12 Indeed, in the case of the “Five Pensioners,” the Court established that “economic, social and cultural rights have both an individual and a collective dimension.”13 In this sense, it is understood that the collective dimension of ESCER is derived from Article 26 of the Convention, through the obligation of progressive development. Thus, for the sake of greater clarity in presenting my arguments, I will refer to the individual dimension of ESCER when alluding to the direct justiciability of a particular right of this nature, applicable to a specific case - for example the victim’s right to a pension - and I will refer to the progressive dimension of ESCAR when alluding to the State’s obligation to progressive development and non-retrogression. Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 97. 8 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, para. 39, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 97. 9 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 17. 10 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, paras. 12 to 19. 11 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, paras.103. 12 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 147. 13 Cf. Case of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 147. 7