connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 65 employees of the Judiciary who were dismissed from their jobs and who were not later rehired. 73. As for the allegation regarding the absence of independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court of Justice to hear the dispute, the Commission observes that, although as the employer it was a party clearly interested in the outcome of the proceeding, the reasons for which said Court dismissed the motion to appeal had to do with the fact that said motion did not proceed against the action being appealed. As a result, the Commission understands that, under domestic law, the Supreme Court of Justice was not called upon to provide substantive rulings on the dispute, and therefore it does not find that the Court’s intervention, under the circumstances of the case, would have undermined the principles of independence and impartiality. C. The right to strike 52 and the right to work 74. Article 26 of the American Convention establishes an obligation for states parties to achieve progressively the realization of the rights contained in said norm. Both bodies of the inter-American system have reaffirmed their competence to rule on possible violations of Article 26 of the American Convention in the framework of the system of individual petitions and cases. In its rulings on the matter, the Court has emphasized the interdependence and indivisibility of economic, social, and cultural rights with respect to civil and political rights. 53 75. The Commission starts by highlighting that the right to strike is protected by Article 26 of the American Convention, whereas Article 45, subparagraph (c) of the OAS Charter expressly integrates it when it provides that: “Employers and workers, both rural and urban, have the right to associate themselves freely for the defense and promotion of their interests, including the right to collective bargaining and the workers' right to strike.” 54 76. Once established, it must be determined if the state concerned failed to fulfill its obligation to “achieve progressively” the full realization of said right or those general obligations to respect and guarantee it. At this second level of review, the nature and scope of the obligations enforceable upon the state under Articles 1.1, 2, and 26 of the Convention, as well as the contents of the right concerned, must be taken into consideration. 55 77. The Commission has indicated that Article 26 of the American Convention imposes various obligations on the states, which are not confined to a prohibition of regressivity, which is correlative to the obligation of progressivity, but cannot be construed as the only obligation that is justiciable in the inter-American system under this norm. Thus, the Commission asserts that, bearing in mind the interpretative framework of Article 29 of the American Convention, Article 26, seen in the light of Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, at least the following immediately enforceable obligations are derived: i) general obligations of respect and guarantee, ii) application of the principle of non-discrimination with respect to economic, social, and cultural rights, iii) obligations to take steps or adopt measures to achieve the enjoyment of the rights incorporated into said article; and iv) to provide offer suitable and effective resources for their protection. The methods or sources of analysis that are relevant for each one of these obligations must be established in keeping with the Article 26 of the American Convention establishes that: 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 implicit in the 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. 53 See for example: I/A Court H.R. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 74-97; I/A Court H.R. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 141; and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs), Judgment of July 1, 2009, para. 101. 54 IACHR. Seventh Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Cuba, 1983, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.61, Doc. 29, rev.1, October 4, 1983, pp. 159 and 160, paras. 52 and 53. 55 IACHR, Report No. 25/18, Case 12.428. Admissibility and Merits. Employees at the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antonio de Jesus and Their Family Members. Brazil. March 2, 2018, para. 130. 52 13