6. the violation of the right to work based on Article 26 of the Convention, it is worth asking whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to proceed in this way. The response to this query is negative. Article 1(1) of the Convention clearly provides that the States Parties "undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure their free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, to all persons under their jurisdiction without discrimination [...]". Correspondingly, the rules on jurisdiction and functions of the Court are also clear in stating that the Court is subject to the provisions of the IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights). Indeed, Article 62(3) states that "the Court has jurisdiction to hear any case concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention which is submitted to it [...]" and, similarly, Article 63(1) stipulates that "If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention [...] the Court shall rule that the injured person be ensured the enjoyment of his or her right to freedom that was violated." Additionally, Chapter III of the Convention, entitled "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights," contains a single article, Article 26, on "Progressive Development." In line with its title, under the aforementioned provision "the States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights deriving from economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires Protocol." 16 7. A reading of this provision will find that, in contrast to what happens with the civil and political rights identified and developed in Chapter II of the ACHR, here an obligation is established for states parties to adopt the “measures”— that is, actions, measures, or public policies—necessary to "progressively" achieve full realization of the rights derived from the norms of the OAS Charter, “subject to available resources.” In other words, each state party has an obligation to be formulating definitions and moving decisively forward on these issues, in accordance with their domestic deliberative procedures. 8. Conceiving of Article 26 of the Convention as a norm referencing all ESCER (Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights) covered in the OAS Charter ignores the commitment adopted by the states parties and opens up a path of uncertainty regarding the catalog of rights justiciable before the Court, affecting the legitimacy of its actions. 9. Furthermore, articles 76(1) and 77(1) of the Convention 17 provide for a system agreed upon by the states to modify the agreement, either through an amendment or an additional protocol. It was precisely under this last provision that the "Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Protocol of San Salvador" of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol") was adopted, with the purpose of progressively including other rights and freedoms in the Bolding added for emphasis. Article 76(1): "Proposals to amend this Convention may be submitted to the General Assembly for the action it deems appropriate by any State Party directly, and by the Commission or the Court through the Secretary General." Article 77(1): "In accordance with Article 31, any State Party and the Commission may submit proposed protocols to this Convention for consideration by the States Parties at the General Assembly with a view to gradually including other rights and freedoms within its system of protection." 16 17 5