-102affairs has even led to the death of many alleged victims, “and up to the present time, their families have not been recognized the right to the surviving family pension on the death of the pensioner guaranteed by the international instruments for human rights protection;” h) that he requests the Court to take into account that the violations to the Labor and Social Security human rights of “Julio Acevedo-Jaramillo and his other fellow workers, formerly employed by the Municipality of Lima and members of the SITRAMUN–Lima, not only encompass a significantly large group of persons (approximately 2,000), but are clearly representative of a pattern of similar violations that took place in Peru between years 1990 and 2000;” i) as a consequence of the violation of said rule, the State also breached its obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention, as well as its duty to ensure to all persons subject to its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms. Besides, the State has violated the right to work and to have a fair remuneration, recognized in Articles XIV and XVI of the American Declaration, which is related to the duty of progressive development guaranteed in Article 26 of the Convention; and j) the application of Decree Law No. 26,093 and Law No. 26,553, which granted the incumbents of the Ministries, of the Decentralized Public Entities and of Local Governments, extraordinary powers to order the implementation of the Staff Assessment Programs, thus empowering them to decide the massive dismissal of their workers, which was contrary to the domestic labor laws then in force. The first one of said rules violated the right to work and the labor rights recognized in the Political Constitution of 1979 and the then applicable common legal rules; on the other hand, the second law violated the labor guarantees incorporated to the new constitution of 1993, therefore, the Stated violated Article 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of the SITRAMUN workers. 284. Arguments filed by the State The State argued that it did not violate any obligation set forth in the Convention. Considerations of the Court 285. The Court shall not analyze the alleged violation of Article 26 of the Convention since it has already referred to the serious consequences of the non-compliance with the judgments within the framework of the labor rights contemplated in said judgments (supra para. 278). * * * 286. The Court does not deliver an opinion on the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention argued by the common intervener as a consequence of the application of Decree Law No 26,093 and Law No. 26,553 (supra para.283(j)), since it would involve an analysis of some facts that are not part of the issues disputed in the instant case.