19. In the judgment, the Inter-American Court declared the State's responsibility by considering that the arbitrary dismissal of Mr. Mina Cuero from his position as a police officer and the lack of access to justice and effective judicial protection constituted a violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 23(1)(c), and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument; and also, the Court considered a violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, but, it acknowledged the existence of a violation of his employment stability, as part of the right to work to which he was entitled. I agree with the considerations expressed in the judgment, with the exception of those related to the direct violation of the right to work based on Article 26, as previously mentioned. 20. It is worth noting that in paragraphs 107 to 111 of the judgment, it is reasoned that Mr. Mina Cuero's termination disregarded due process guarantees, which arbitrarily affected his tenure in the position of a police officer. The above undoubtedly violates the State's duty to prohibit all forms of discrimination in the exercise of every person's right to access public functions in conditions of general equality in their country. But the same fact is classified as a violation of the right to work that Mr. Mina Cuero would supposedly be entitled to, without specifying any other factual circumstance that, on its own, would violate the right protected by Article 26 of the Convention. It is not questioned that the State's conduct fails to comply with the duty of non-discrimination and the duty to adopt measures for the exercise of the right of every person to have access to public functions under general equal terms, but the judgment does not explain how that conduct autonomously resulted in a violation of the victim's right to job stability. In conclusion, the judgment establishes the violation of the right to work based on the same facts and grounds used to establish the violation of the right to access public functions under general equal terms, placing us within the same scope of protection. Certainly, the same event can lead to the violation of one or more rights under the Convention, but for such violations to be declared, it is necessary for those rights to be justiciable before the Court. 21. In conclusion, unfortunately, as Medina and David have expressed, "the majority's position undermines the effectiveness not only of the San Salvador Protocol but also of Article 26 itself," 26 a conventional provision with a specific content that the Court can and should develop in the cases it is called upon to adjudicate. 22. This approach affects the legal certainty that an international court should guarantee and the legitimacy of its decisions, since the argument provided simply ignores a norm that does not grant the Court jurisdiction to address potential violations of the right to work. Patricia Pérez Goldberg Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Registrar 26 its own. Medina and David, "The American Convention on Human Rights" (2022:28). The translation is 8