protection regime of the Convention. 10. However, despite the fact that the aforementioned Protocol recognizes and develops a set of ESCER in its text, 18 Article 19(6), concerning Means of Protection, assigns jurisdiction to the Court to address potential violations only with respect to two rights: the right to organize and join trade unions and the right to education. This provision establishes that in the event that such rights "are violated by an action directly attributable to a State party to this Protocol, such a situation could give rise, through the participation of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, and when appropriate of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, to the application of the system of individual petitions regulated by Articles 44 to 51 and 61 to 69 of the American Convention on Human Rights." 11. Therefore, in light of the treaty (composed of two instruments: the Convention and its Additional Protocol), 19 the Court lacks jurisdiction to declare an autonomous violation of the right to work. 12. I reiterate that asserting the lack of direct justiciability of ESCER before the Court does not imply disregarding the existence or the immense importance of such rights, the interdependent and indivisible nature they have in relation to civil and political rights, nor does it mean that they lack protection or should not be protected. It is the duty of the States to allow the autonomy of individuals to be realized, which means that they should have access to primary goods (wider than those defined in the realm of political philosophy by John Rawls), 20 that make the development of their capabilities possible, this includes access to economic, social, and cultural rights. 21 13. It is necessary, then, to distinguish between two -related- but distinct levels. One is at the national level, where, through democratic procedures, citizens decide to translate ESCER into their respective legal systems, also incorporating international law on this matter, as is the case in the vast majority of member states of the Inter-American Human Rights System. In this context, it is the national courts that -within the scope of their jurisdictionexercise their powers regarding the interpretation and justiciability of these rights, in accordance with their Constitutions and laws. 14. Another, different 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. As explained, in light of the normative design of this 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. In this context, nothing prevents the court from considering the economic, social, and cultural dimensions of the rights recognized in the treaty norms and exercising its adjudicative jurisdiction through related matters. The Court has used this approach in previous cases 18 The right to work, to fair and equitable working conditions, labor rights, the right to social security, to health, to a healthy environment, to food, to education, to the benefits of culture, to the establishment and protection of the family, to childhood, to the protection of the elderly, and to the protection of persons with disabilities[sic]. 19 According to Article 2(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty might be embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments. 20 For RAWLS, primary goods are a set of goods necessary "for the elaboration and execution of a rational life plan," such as liberty, opportunities, income, wealth, and self-respect, "A Theory of Justice" (1995:393). 21 Pérez Goldberg, "Las mujeres privadas de libertad y el enfoque de capacidades" (2021:94-109). 6