general obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, as are the civil and political rights established in Articles 3 to 25. 44 21. The competence of the Inter-American Court to rule on economic, social and cultural rights, under the normative content of Article 26 of the Pact of San José, can also be seen in the considerations expressed in the 2009 concurring opinion of the former president of the Inter-American Court, Sergio García Ramírez, in the Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru, which, to some extent, explains the decision of the said jurisdictional organ. 45 22. Thus, in his concurring opinion, the former inter-American judge recognized that, up until that time, the treatment of economic, social and cultural rights “has been very limited” and that, in that case, the Inter-American Court “had made progress” on the issue of those rights when “reaffirming its competence – which should now be well-established” – to rule on possible failures to comply with Article 26” of the American Convention. Accordingly, the Inter-American Court “understands that the observance of Article 26 may be claimed and required.” 23. In this sense, in the Case of Acevedo Buendía et al., the Inter-American Court made express reference to the “interdependence” of rights in order to examine the economic, social and cultural rights referred to in Article 26 of the Pact of San José. 46 However, it found that, together with the interdependence, it was necessary to emphasize the “indivisible” nature of human rights, as it explicitly established in the judgment to which this separate opinion refers, when considering the two concepts: “interdependence and indivisibility” 47. 24. Based on their interdependence (reciprocal dependence), the enjoyment of some rights depends on the realization of others, while their indivisibility denies any separation, categorization or hierarchy among rights for the effects of their respect, protection and guarantee. Moreover, some judges of previous compositions of the Inter-American Court have referred to the “independence and indivisibility” of human rights. 48 25. In this sense, I consider that the “interdependence and indivisibility” should be dealt with as an inseparable duo, as indicated in the main human rights instruments. 49 This is in 44 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, para. 100. It should not be forgotten that, in this matter, the Commission in its Merits Report did not find that the content of Article 26 had been violated, but the representatives of the victims did allege this when expressly stating that “the State is responsible for non-compliance with Article 26 (Progressive development of economic, social and cultural rights) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof,” para. 4 of the judgment in the Case of Acevedo Buendía. 45 Concurring opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez with regard to the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) of July 1, 2009, paras. 15 to 21. 46 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. v. Peru (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra, para. 101. 47 Para. 131 of the Judgment. 48 See, for example, the partially concurrent and partially dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Ramon Fogel, paras. 23 and 30, in the Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra, and the opinion of Judge Antonio Cançado Trindade, para. 7, in the Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. 49 See the Preamble to the American Convention on Human Rights, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Proclamation of Teheran 1948, para. 13. 9