-8- 26. With regard to the teleological or purposive interpretation, it has been affirmed that this method favors the direct justiciability of ESCR in two ways: (i) the ultimate purpose of the inter-American system is the protection of human rights and this means trying to make the greatest possible number of rights enforceable, and (ii) when Article 26 of the Convention was established, the States’ intention was not to exclude the possibility of the direct enforceability of ESCR. Regarding the first affirmation, it should be pointed out that the Protocol of San Salvador had the specific purpose of incorporating the ESCR into the inter-American system more precisely, and expanding the system’s sphere of protection, so that it is not fair to situate the Protocol as a treaty that would contravene the purpose of the inter-American system simply by establishing rules of competence. In addition, on this point it should be stressed that “[i]f the ordinary meaning of a provision is clear in not granting jurisdiction to the IAS bodies, the object and purpose of the Convention cannot be used to overthrow that result.”21 27. Regarding the second affirmation, although the preparatory work of the treaty is a supplementary means of interpretation, in some cases, the Inter-American Court has used this to try and discern the objective or purpose that the States had when creating the treaty. Thus, in the judgment in the Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, the Court referred to the preparatory work with the intention of demonstrating that, perhaps, the State had agreed on the direct justiciability of the ESCR when they discussed Article 26 of the Convention. In this regard, it is worth noting that: The Court put forward the points of view of only those States which tried to materialize the exercise of ESC rights by means of the activity of the Court. No mention was made of the countries which opposed the enforceability of ESC rights and, more importantly, as Burgorgue-Larsen recalls: nothing was said about the process which ultimately gave rise to the drafting of Article 26 as such. Nor was anything said about the scope the different States were prepared to confer on this article. Does this mean that the article was the result of a compromise, or did it represent those States which were in favor of giving economic and social rights such an important place? Clearly, the silences of the Court were part of its strategy to reach its objective, come what may, namely conferring the widest scope possible on Article 26. But Brazil and Guatemala aside, the preparatory works show just how reluctant the majority of States were to recognize that what was to become Article 26 should be actionable22 (underlining added). 28. Regarding the use of comparative law as a means of reinforcing a possible evolutive interpretation in this regard, although it is true that most of the Constitutions of the countries of the region include a list of ESCR, and many of them admit the possibility of the direct justiciability of such rights, I consider that this is not a sufficient argument to expand the scope of Article 26 of the Convention. In this regard, I repeat that it was the States themselves that took the decision not to guarantee direct justiciability in this article and, to the contrary, when they established a list of rights in the Protocol, they decided to limit the Court’s competence. Thus, even though, internally, the State have gradually expanded their position, it is not for the Court to modify the intention originally expressed in the Protocol. In this regard, Articles 31, 76 and 77 of the American Convention determine that, if the States wish to recognize other rights, they may propose amendments or protocols that allow this. 21 Oswaldo Ruiz Chiriboga, The American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador: Two Intertwined Treaties, Non-Enforceability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Inter-American System, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 31/2 (2013), p. 170. 22 Oswaldo Ruiz Chiriboga, The American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador: Two Intertwined Treaties, Non-Enforceability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Inter-American System, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 31/2 (2013), p. 170.