circumstances inherent to each case. 56 In addition, the state has basic obligations that must meet the essential contents of said rights, which are not subject to progressive realization but rather they are of an immediate nature. 57 78. Beyond the direct reference to the right to strike by the OAS Charter, the IACHR deems that it must take into account the sources, principles, and criteria of international law to set the scope and contents of said right, taking into account Article 29 of the American Convention, which expressly refers to the norms of international law for their interpretation and enforcement. 58 79. Regarding this, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has indicated that “the right to strike is one of the essential legitimate means through which workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. The right to strike may only be restricted or prohibited in the following cases: (1) in public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population); or 3) in the event of an acute national emergency and for a limited period of time.” 59 80. As for the Committee of Experts of the ILO, it has indicated that striking is a basic right that employees and their organizations have available to defend their interests. It is not an end in itself but rather the last resort that workers organizations have available, because their consequences are grave not only for the employers but also for the workers, their families, and the organizations themselves and that said right arises from Articles 3 and 10 of ILO Convention 87. Likewise, it has indicated that, if domestic legislation prohibits strikes when collective agreements are in force, this restriction must be compensated for by the right to resort to an impartial and rapid arbitration procedure to examine the individual or collective complaints on the interpretation or enforcement of the collective agreements. 60 81. Likewise, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Ogvnevenko v. Russia, reiterated that strike action is protected by Article 11 of the European Convention, which refers to the freedom of assembly and association, and indicated that the right to strike is not absolute and may be subject under national law to regulation. It stated that said article does not exclude any occupational group from its scope and that only convincing reasons can justify restrictions on this right. 61 82. Likewise, the European Committee of Social Rights has recognized workers’ right to strike and has indicated that subjecting the exercise of the right to strike to prior approval by a certain percentage of workers is in conformity with Article 6.4 of the European Social Charter, provided that the ballot method, the quorum, and the majority required are not such that the exercise of the right to strike is excessively limited. 62 83. In sum, it is clear to the IACHR that the protection of the right to strike, together with freedom of association and collective bargaining, are fundamental pillars to guarantee the right to work and its fair and equitable conditions as it is a right to which workers and their organizations may appeal in defense of their economic, social and professional interests 63. Taking into account that the exercise of the right to strike consists in the collective suspension of labor activity in a voluntary and peaceful manner, usually in order to obtain some kind 56 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. 134. 57 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 3: The Nature of States Parties Obligations (paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Covenant), 1990. In that regard, see: IACHR. Report on Poverty and Human Rights in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.164 Doc. 147 (September 7, de 2017), paras. 236 and 237. 58 I/A Court H.R. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 174. 59 ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, Case 1581 (Thailand), Report No. 327, March 2002, para. 111. 60 Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, General Survey on the fundamental Conventions concerning rights at work in light of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair, 2008, pp. 48 and 60. 61 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Ogvnevenko v. Russia, November 20, 2018, paras. 57-59. 62 Digest of the Case Law of the European Committee of Social Rights, p. 106. 63 Comité de Libertad Sindical. Recopilación de decisiones y principios del Comité de Libertad Sindical del Consejo de Administración de la OIT (2006). párr. 521-522. 14