23. It argued that, in the instant case, the only allegation concerning the principle of progressive development of the economic, social and cultural rights was contained in the pleadings and motions brief. Therefore, the Commission had not ruled in this regard and, consequently, it was not pertinent to analyze this. It asked the Court to reject the claim concerning the violation of the right to work. 24. The representative argued that the allegation concerning the violation of the right to work was related to the factual grounds of the case so that there could be no limitation to its analysis. She added that, in the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, the Court had asserted that the right to work was protected by the American Convention, considering that the civil and political rights and those of an economic, social and cultural nature should be understood integrally, without any hierarchy among them, and were therefore enforceable in all cases before the authorities with competence to protect them. 25. The Commission indicated that the representatives or the presumed victims are able to cite the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that these related to the facts contained in the latter. It added that “this was not the right moment to question the […] Court’s case law on the violation of Article 26 [of the Convention],” because the Court itself had reiterated that the broad terms in which the American Convention was drafted indicated that it had full jurisdiction over all its articles and provisions. It asked the Court to reject this preliminary objection. B.2. Considerations of the Court 26. The Court reaffirms its competence to examine and decide disputes relating to Article 26 of the American Convention as an integral part of the rights listed in its text, regarding which Article 1(1) establishes obligations of respect and guarantee. 11 As indicated in previous decisions,12 the considerations related to the possible occurrence of such violations must be examined when analyzing the merits of the matter. 27. Furthermore, in response to the State’s arguments, it should be added that the Court has repeatedly considered that the representatives or the presumed victims may invoke rights other than those indicated by the Commission, because as the latter are entitled to all the rights established in the American Convention, denying them this possibility would entail an 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. 16, 17 and 100; Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, paras. 142 and 154; Case of the Discharged Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 192; Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 220; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 100; Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 75 to 97; Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, paras. 34 to 37; Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUBSUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, paras. 33 and 34; Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 62; Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 195; Case of Spoltore v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 9, 2020. Series C No. 404, para. 85, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 23. 11 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 37, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil, supra, para. 23. 12 8